J 



-" 



OLD AIVD NEW TESTAMENT. 






THE 



CANON 



OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT 

ASCERTAINED; 



OK, 



THE BIBLE COMPLETE 



WITHOUT THE 



APOCRYPHA AND UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 



BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, 

1 1 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AT 
PRINCETON, N. J. 



SECOND EDITION 




TRENTON: 

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM d'hART. 

Printed at the Office of the National Union. 
1833. 



i < 



'854 65* 



Copyright secured, according to law. 



9%m ♦ fzui **-* ♦ t f&4. 



PREFACE. 



One motive which induced the author to undertake the follow- 
ing compilation, was the desire of furnishing a supplement to 
the little volume which he recently published, on the Evi- 
dences of the Christian Religion; for the argument for the 
truth of Divine Revelation cannot be considered complete, with- 
out the testimonies, by which the Canonical authority of the 
several books of Scripture is established. But he was also in- 
fluenced by the consideration, that a convenient and compen- 
dious work on this subject, is a desideratum, in our English 
Theological Literature. The works which we possess on the 
Canon of Scripture, are either too learned or too voluminous, 
for the use of common readers. Besides, the whole subject has 
been seldom treated by the same author; for while one vindi- 
cates the Canon of the Old Testament alone, another confines 
himself to the settling of the Canon of the New Testament. 

The object of the writer of this work, is to exhibit a com- 
pendious view of the whole subject, and in such a form as will 
be level to the capacities of all descriptions of readers. He has 
aimed at bringing forward the result of the researches of learned 
men, who have treated this subject in such a manner, that the 
substance of their works might be easily accessible to that nu- 
merous class of readers, who are unskilled in the learned lan- 
guages. It was, moreover, his opinion, that such a volume as 
this, would not be unacceptable to theological students, and to 
clergymen, who have it not in their power to procure more 
costly works. 



this treatise have been derived(pom others, the author feels it 
to be incumbent on him, to give due credit to those learned au- 
thors from whom he has received aid ; which can be more con- 
veniently done, at once, in this place, than by perpetual refe- 
rences, in the body of the work. 

In the First Part, which relates to the Canon, of the Old 
Testament, assistance has been derived from The Panstratia 
of Chamier, The Isagoge of Buddeus, The Thesaurus Philo- 
logicus of Hottinger, Prideaux's Connexion, Wilson on the 
Apocrypha; and above all, from Bishop Cosines Scholastick 
History of the Canon of the Old Testament. 

In the Second Part, on the Canon of the New Testament, the 
testimonies adduced, have been principally selected from the 
ample collections of the impartial and indefatigable Lardner ; 
but in all that relates to the Apocryphal books of the New Tes- 
tament, little else has been done, than to abridge and arrange 
the information contained in the valuable work of the learned 
Jeremiah Jones, on the Canon of the New Testament. 

On the subject of the Oral Law of the Jews, the author has 
freely availed himself of the labors of that great polemic, Horn- 
beek, in his learned work, Contra Judceos. On that of Un- 
written Traditions, he found no writer more satisfactory, than 
Chemnitius, in his Examen Con. Trid. By the introduction 
of a discussion on these points, into a treatise on the Canon of 
Scripture, he acknowledges that he has departed from the 
usual method of treating the subject; but he is persuaded, that 
a little consideration will convince every candid reader, that the 
sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, cannot be demon- 
strated, unless it be shown, that no part of divine revelation was 
left to be handed down by unwritten tradition. For if, as many 
believe, an important part of the doctrines and institutions of 



Vll 



Christianity has been transmitted to us, only through this chan- 
nel, it will answer very little purpose to prove, that our Bibles 
comprehend all the books ever written by inspiration for the use 
of the Catholic Church ; since, on this hypothesis, an essential 
part of divine revelation is not contained in the Scriptures, and 
was, indeed, never committed to writing*. But the object in this 
work is to show, that the Bible is complete, containing, all 
things necessary to guide the faith and practice of every sincere 
Christian ; and that the church is in possession of no other re- 
velation, but what is recorded in these Sacred Books. 

Note. — To avoid the inconvenience of burthening the page with 
references, the chapter and page from which testimonies are taken, 
are not set down. Every reader who wishes to investigate these 
matters thoroughly, may have recourse to Lardner, Jones, Cosins, 
and the other writers, whose works have been used in forming this 
compilation. 



CONTEXTS. 



. . . 

Canon of the Holy Scrirr^rf?, - 

SECTION I. 

Constitution of the Canon of the Old Testament hj I 
— The Canon of the Old Testament as it n; sanc- 
tioned by Chris: Apostles — Catalogues of the Books 
by some of the early fathers — Agreement of Jews and Chris- 


SECT! JN III. 

Apocryphal books — Their origin — Importar:: tistm- 

7 . : : '.:s — 
of :7i5 :*.ii5 -_:: :::.::::: i 7 ?.:..... 7 :j :if C :.:..::. : :' 7.:;;- — 
in the Hebrew, nor leceired by the Jews, ancient :: 
jttodfm - - - - - - . - - -39 

SI 

Tr- '._-.:-.v.r? ::' :7? Ci: : .i :::■:.: 77:; r. ;:7 ::' ;7.r: '.i?.:zii 

Ar:c:-:i:;:. 4S 

mm v. 

■T:::f:s :::: ::::7„;:s. ;.:;! 1; :-.: : 77n :; ':f :._-_i7:f 7 - - '7 

-7 YL 

86 
S7 
The Oral La 7.::;n. - - 96 



PAR 7 EL 

>7 ; 7_:x l 



17 



section n. 

s of the New I estament — Canonical 

:.:y by :ie Fliers. :._ 



SECTION III. page. 

Order of the Books of the New Testament—Time of the 

Gospels being written — Notice of the Evangelists. - - 143 i 

SECTION IV. 
Testimonies to Matthews' Gospel— Time of publication- 
Language in which it was originally composed. - - - 153 ! 
SECTION V. 
Gospel of Mark — On what occasion published— Ascribed to 
the dictation of Peter by all the Fathers. - - - - 161 

SECTION VI. 
Gospel of Luke— Testimonies of the Fathers respecting it 16-9 
SECTION VII. 
^ The objections of J. D. Michaelis, to the Canonical autho- 
rity of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, considered and an- 
swered. - -- - - .. . -175 

SECTION VIII. 

The Gospel of John — Life of this Evangelist— Occasion and 
time of his writing— Canonical authority indisputable - - - 18? 
SECTION IX. 
The Acts of the Apostles— Luke the Author— Canonical 
Authority undisputed by the Fathers; Rejected only by heretics. 194 
SECTION X. 
Testimonies to the Canonical authority of the fourteen 

epistles of Paul. - 199 

SECTION XI. 
Canonical authority of the seven Catholic Epistles. - - - 220 

SECTION XII. 
Canonical authority of the Book of Revelation. - - - - 229 

SECTION XIII. 
No Canonical Book of the New Testament has been lost. 250 

SECTION XIV. 
Rules for determining what books are Apocryphal ; some 
account of the Apocryphal books which have been lost : All 
of them condemned by the foregoing rules : Reason of the 
abounding of such books. - - - - - -263 

SECTION XV. 

Apocryphal books which are still extant; Letter of Abgarus, 

King of Edessa to Jesus, and his answer ; Epistle to the Lao- 

diceans ; Letters of Paul to Seneca ; Protevangelion of James ; 

The Gospel of our Saviour's infancy ; The Acts of Pilate ; 

The Acts of Paul and Thecla. 274 

SECTION XVI. 
No part of the Christian Revelation handed down by un- 
written tradition. - - 295 

Notes, - 337 



PART I. 



INTRODUCTION. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAINING THE TRUE 
CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 

The Bible includes a large number of separate 
books, published in different ages, during a space 
of more than fifteen hundred years. Each of 
these books when first published, formed a vol- 
ume; or at least, the writings of each author, 
were, in the beginning, distinct : and if they had 
continued in that separate form, and had been 
transmitted to us, in many volumes instead of 
one, their authority would not, on this account, 
have been less, nor their usefulness diminished. 
Their collection into one volume, is merely a 
matter of convenience; and if any persons choose, 
now, to publish these books in a separate form, 
they cannot with propriety be charged with cast- 
ing any indignity on the word of God. 

Hence it appears, that besides general argu- 
ments to demonstrate that the Bible contains a 
divine revelation, there is need of special proofs 
to evince, that each of the books now included in 
that sacred volume, has a right to the place which 
it occupies ; or does in reality contain a part of 
that revelation which God has given. 

If, therefore, it could be shown (which how- 



14 

ever it never can) that some particular book, now 
included in the Bible, was not authentic, the 
conclusion thence derived would only affect that 
single production ; unless it were recognized as 
divine by the writers of the other books. The 
credit of the whole volume would not be destroy- 
ed, even if it could be proved, that one half the 
books of which it consists were spurious. Infidels 
have much more to effect in overthrowing the 
Bible, than they commonly suppose. It is incum- 
bent on them to demonstrate, not only that this 
or that book is false, but that every one of these 
productions is destitute of evidence, that it has 
been derived from the inspiration of God. 

On the other hand, it is manifest, that the advo- 
cate of divine revelation is bound to defend the 
claims of every separate portion of this volume ; 
or to reject from it, that part, which has no evi- 
dence of a divine origin. It is necessary, that he 
should be able to render a good reason why he 
admits any particular book, to form a part of the 
inspired volume. 

It is true, that the antiquity of this collection 
claims for it a high degree of respect: the trans- 
mission of this volume to us, through so many 
centuries, as Holy Scripture, should teach us to 
be cautious how we question what is so venera- 
ble for its antiquity. But this only furnishes one 
presumptive argument in favor of each book. It 
by no means renders all further investigation un- 
necessary ; much less, impious. 

It is easy to conceive, that books not written 
by the inspiration of God, might, by some casu- 
alty or mistake, find a place in the sacred volume. 



15 

In fact, we have a striking example of this very 
thing, in the Greek and Latin Bibles which are 
now in use, and held to be sacred by a large 
majority of those who are denominated Chris- 
tians. These Bibles, besides the books which 
have evidence of being truly inspired, contain a 
number of other books, the claim of which to 
inspiration cannot be sustained by solid and satis- 
factory reasons. This inquiry, therefore, is far 
from being one of mere curiosity : it is in the 
highest degree practical, and concerns the con- 
science of every man capable of making the in- 
vestigation. We agree, in the general, that the 
Bible is the word of God, and an authoritative 
rule; but the momentous question immediately 
presents itself, what belongs to the Bible 1 Of 
what books does this sacred volume consist? And 
it will not answer, to resolve to take it as it has 
come down to us, without further inquiry; for the 
Bible has come down to us, in several different 
forms. The Vulgate Latin Bible, which only was 
in use, for hundreds of years before the era of the 
reformation, and also the Greek version of the 
Old Testament, contain many books, not in the 
copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now to deter- 
mine, which of these contains the whole of the 
inspired books given to the Jews before the advent 
of Christ, and no more, requires research, and 
accurate examination. The inquiry, therefore, is 
not optional, but forces itself upon every consci- 
entious man; for as no one is at liberty to reject 
from the sacred volume, one sentence, much less 
a whole book of the revelation of God ; so, no 
om has a right to add any thing to the word of 



16 

God; and of consequence, no one may receive 
as divine, what others have without authority- 
added to the Holy Scriptures. Every man, 
therefore, according to his opportunity and ca- 
pacity, is under a moral obligation to use his best 
endeavors to ascertain what books do, really, and 
of right, belong to the Bible. An error here, on 
either side, is dangerous; for on the one hand, if 
we reject a part of divine revelation, we dishonor 
God, and deprive ourselves of the benefit which 
might be derived from that portion of divine truth; 
and on the other hand, we are guilty of an equal 
offence, and may suffer an equal injury, by adding 
spurious productions to the Holy Scriptures ; for 
thus we adulterate and poison the fountain of life ; 
and subject our consciences to the authority of 
mere men. 

I think, therefore, that the importance and ne- 
cessity of this inquiry must be evident to every 
person of serious reflexion. But to some it may 
appear, that this matter has been long ago settled 
on the firmest principles ; and that it can answer 
no good purpose to agitate questions, which have 
a tendency to produce doubts and misgivings in 
the minds of common Christians, rather than a 
confirmation of their faith. In reply to the first 
part of this objection, I would say, that it is freely 
admitted that this subject has been ably and fully 
discussed long ago, and in almost every age until 
the present time ; and the author aims at nothing 
more, in this short treatise, than to exhibit to the 
sincere inquirer, who may not enjoy better means 
of information, the subject of those discussions 
and proofs, which ought to be in the possession 



rr 

of every Christian. His object is, not to bring 
forth any thing new, but to collect, and condense 
in a narrow space, what has been written by the 
judicious and the learned, on this important sub- 
ject. But, that discussion tends to induce doubt- 
ing, is a sentiment unworthy of Christians, who 
maintain that their religion is founded on the 
best reasons, and who are commanded "to give 
to every man a reason of the hope that is in them? 
That faith which is weakened by discussion is 
mere prejudice, not true faith. They who receive 
the most important articles of their religion, upon 
trust, from human authority, are continually liable 
to be thrown into doubt; and the only method 
of obviating this evil, is, to dig deep and lay our 
foundation upon a rock. If this objection had any 
weight, it would discourage <xll attempts to estab- 
lish the truth of our holy religion, by argument ; 
and would also damp the spirit of free inquiry, on 
every important subject. It is true, however, 
that the first effect of free discussion, may be, to 
shake that easy confidence, which most men en- 
tertain, that all their opinions are correct : but 
the beneficial result will be, that instead of a 
persuasion, having no other foundation than pre- 
judice, it will generate a faith resting on the firm 
basis of evidence. 

There is, undoubtedly, among Christians, too 
great a disposition to acquiesce, without exami- 
nation, in the religion of their forefathers. There 
is too great an aversion to that kind of research, 
which requires time and labor ; so that many 
who are fully competent to examine the founda- 
tion on which their religion rests, never take the 

b2 



18 

pains to enter on the investigation ; and it is to 
be regretted, that many who are much occupied 
with speculations on abstruse points of theology, 
waste the energies of their minds on subjects 
which can yield them no manner of profit, while 
they neglect entirely, or but superficially attend 
to, points of fundamental importance. 

The two great questions most deserving the 
attention of all men are ; first, whether the Bible 
and all that it contains, is from God : secondly, 
what are those truths which the Bible was in- 
tended to teach us. These two grand inquiries 
are sufficient to give occupation and vigorous ex- 
ercise, to intellectual faculties of the highest order; 
and they are not removed entirely out of the 
reach of plain uneducated Christians. From the 
fountain of divine truth every one may draw ac- 
cording to his capacity. But these inquiries are 
neglected, not so much for want of time and 
capacity, as because we take no pleasure in 
searching for, and contemplating, divine truth. 
Just in proportion as men love the truth and 
value the Bible, they will take an interest in 
all inquiries which relate to the authenticity, ca- 
nonical authority, and correct interpretation of 
the sacred books. The time will come, I doubt 
not, when these studies will occupy the minds of 
thousands, where they now engage the attention 
of one. The Bible will grow into importance in 
the estimation of men, just in the same propor- 
tion, as true religion flourishes. It will not only 
be the fashion, to associate for printing and circu- 
lating the Holy Scriptures; but it will become 
customary, for men of the highest literary attain- 



19 

ments, as well as others, to study the sacred 
pages with unceasing assiduity and prayer. And, 
in proportion as the Bible is understood In its 
simplicity, and momentous import, the mere doc- 
trines of men will disappear ; and the dogmas of 
the schools and the alliance with philosophy 
being renounced, there will be among sincere 
inquirers after truth, an increasing tendency to 
unity of sentiment, as well as unity of spirit. The 
pride of learning and of intellect being sacrificed, 
and all distinctions counted but loss for the ex- 
cellency of the knowledge of Christ, a thousand 
knotty questions, which now cause divisions and 
gender strifes, will be forgotten; and the wonder 
of our more enlightened posterity will be, how 
good men could have wasted their time and their 
talents in such unprofitable speculations; and, 
more especially, how they could have permitted 
themselves, to engage in fierce and unbrotherly 
contentions, about matters of little importance. 

Then also, men will no more neglect and un- 
dervalue the Scriptures, on pretence of possessing 
a brighter light within them, than that which em- 
anates from the divine word. That spurious de- 
votion which affects a superiority to external 
means and ordinances, will be exchanged for the 
simple, sincere reliance on the revealed will of 
God ; and those assemblies from which the sacred 
volume is now excluded, while the effusions of 
every heated imagination are deemed revelations 
of the Spirit, will become under the influence of 
divine truth, churches of the living God. 

In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, 
the service of the most High God will be con- 



20 

sidered by men, generally, as the noblest employ- 
ment ; and the best talents and attainments will 
be consecrated, on the altar of God; and the 
same enterprizes, and the same labors which 
they now undertake to gratify an avaricious, 
ambitious, or voluptuous disposition, will be pur- 
sued from love to God #nd man. The merchant 
will plan, and travel, and traffic, to obtain the 
means of propagating the gospel in foreign 
parts, and promoting Christian knowledge at 
home ; yea, the common laborer, will cheerfully 
endure toil and privation, that he may have a 
mite to cast into the treasury of the Lord. 

Now, many consider all that is given to circu- 
late the Bible, and to send missionaries and tracts 
for the instruction of the ignorant, as so much 
wasted ; but then, all expenditures will be con- 
sidered as profuse and wasteful, which terminate 
in mere selfish gratification; and those funds will 
alone be reckoned useful, which are applied to 
promote the glory of God and the welfare of men. 

These, however, may appear to many as the 
visions of a heated imagination, which will never 
be realized ; but if the same change in the views 
and sentiments of men which has been going on 
for thirty years past, shall continue to advance 
with the same steady pace, half a century will 
not have elapsed, from the present time, before 
such a scene will be exhibited to 4 the admiring 
eyes of believers, as> witTaffordy full ground to 
justify hopes as sanguine, as those expressed in 
the foregoing anticipations. 

But I have wandered, wide of my subject — I 
will now recall the attention of the reader to the 



21 

consideration of the exceeding great importance 
of ascertaining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. 
This investigation may, indeed, appear dry, and 
unentertaining, but every thing which bears any 
relation to the great Charter of our privileges 
and our hopes, ought to be interesting to us. It 
has been my object, to bring this subject not only 
more conveniently within the reach of the Theo- 
logical student, but also to a level with the 
capacity of the common christian. That this 
little work may in some humble degree subserve 
the cause of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of 

THE AUTHOR. 



SECTION I. 

EARLY USE, AND IMPORT OF THE WORD CANON 

The word canon, literally signifies, a rule : and 
it is used in this sense, several times, in the New 
Testament, as Gal. vi. 16; "As many as walk ac- 
cording to this rule." Phil. iii. 16; "Let us walk by 
the same rule." 

But in these passages there is no reference to the 
Scriptures, as a volume. 

The word canon, however, was early used by the 
Christian Fathers, to designate the Inspired Scriptures. 
Irenceus, speaking of the Scriptures, calls them, the 
canon of truth. Clement of Alexandria, refer- 
ing to a quotation of the Gospel according to the 
Egyptians, says, "But they follow any thing, rather 
than, the true evangelical canon." 

Eusebius says of Origen, "But in the first book of 
his commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, observing 
the ecclesiastical canon, declares, that he knew 
of four Gospels only." 

Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, speaks of three 
sorts of books ; the canonical ; such as were allowed 
to be read ; and such as were Apocryphal. By the 
first he evidently means, such as we now call ca- 
nonical. 

The Council of Laodicea ordained, "that none 
but canonical books should be read in the church; 
that is, the books of the Old and New Testament." 



24 

Rufin, after enumerating the books of the Old and 
New Testaments, goes on to mention three classes of 
books. 1. Such as were included in the canon. 2. 
Ecclesiastical, or such as were allowed to be read. 3, 
Apocryphal, such as were not permitted to be publicly- 
read. 

Jerome often speaks of the canon of Scripture, 
and mentions books which might be read, but did not 
belong to the canon. 

The third council of Carthage ordained, 
"That nothing beside the canonical scriptures 
be read in the church, under the name of the Divine 
Scriptures." 

Augustine often makes mention of the canoni- 
cal scriptures, and the whole canon of scrip- 
ture, meaning to designate all the sacred books of 
the Old and New Testaments. "We read of some," 
says he, "that they searched the Scriptures daily, 
whether these things were so. What Scriptures, I 
pray, except the canonical Scriptures, of the Law 
and the Prophets. To them have been since added, 
the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of 
the Apostles, and the Revelation of John." 

Chrysostom says, "They fall into great absurdi- 
ties, who will not follow the Canon of the Divine 
Scripture, but trust to their own reasoning." 

Isidore of Pelusium observes, "That these things 
are so, we shall perceive, if we attend to the Canon 
of truth ; the Divine Scriptures." 

And Leontius of Constantinople, having cited the 
whole catalogue of the books of Sacred Scripture, from 
Genesis to Revelation, concludes, " These are the an- 
cient and the new books, which are received in the 
church, as Canonical." 



25 

From the authorities cited above, it will evidently 
appear, that at an eariy period, the Satfred Scriptures 
were carefully distinguished from all other writings, 
and formed a rule, which all Christians considered to 
be authoritative : and that this collection of sacred 
writings, received the name of Canon. 

The division of the sacred books which is most 
ancient and universal, is, into the Old Testament, 
and the New Testament. The Apostle Paul him- 
self lays a foundation for this distinction ; for, in his 
second Epistle to the Corinthians,* he uses the phrases, 
Old Testament, and New Testament: and in 
one instance, designates the Scriptures of the Law, by 
the former title: "For until this day," says he, ;i re- 
maineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of 
the Old Testament." 

It is our object, in this work, to inquire into the 
Canon, both of the Old, and New Testament, and to 
discuss all the principal questions, connected with this 
subject. 



* 2 Cor. iii. 14. 



SECTION II. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTA- 
MENT BY EZRA— THE CANON OF THE OLD TES- 
TAMENT, AS IT NOW EXISTS, SANCTIONED BY 
CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES— CATALOUGES OF 

THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE EARLY FATHERS 

AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THIS 
SUBJECT. 

The five books of Moses were, when finished, care- 
fully deposited by the side of the ark of the Covenant 
Deut. xxxi. 24, 25, 26. "And it came to pass, when 
Moses had made an end of writing the words of this 
Law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses 
commanded the Levites which bore the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord, saying, take this book or the 
Law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant 
of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a wit- 
ness against thee." 

No doubt, copies of the sacred volume were made 
out, before it was deposited in the most holy place ; for 
as it was there inaccessible to any but the priests, the 
people generally must have remained ignorant, had 
there been no copies of the Law. But we know that 
copies were written, for it was one of the laws respecting 
the duty of a king, when such an officer should be 
appointed, that he should write out a copy of the Law 
with his own hand. Deut. xvii. 18 — 20. ''And it 
shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his king- 
dom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a 



27 

book, out of that which is before the priests, the Levites. 
And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein, 
all the days of his life ; that he may learn to fear the 
Lord his (ibd, to keep all the words of this law and 
these statue^ to do them. That his heart be not 
lifted up al^e his brethren, and that he turn not aside 
from the commandment to the right hand or to the 
left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his 
kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel." 
It is related by Joseph us, that by the direction of Moses, 
a copy of the law was prepared for each of the tribes of 
Israel. 

It seems, that the book of Joshua was annexed to 
the volume of the Pentateuch ; for we read, that 
"Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of 
God."* And the matters contained in this book were 
of public concern to the nation, as well as those re- 
corcWi in the law. For, as in the latter were written 
states and ordinances, to direct them in all matters 
sacred and civil: so, in the former was recorded, the 
division of the land among the tribes. The possession 
of each tribe was here accurately denned ; so that this 
book served as a national deed of conveyance. When 
other books were added to the Canon, no doubt, the 
inspired men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to 
write them, would be careful to deposit copies in the 
sanctuary, and to have other copies put into circula- 
tion. But on this subject we have no precise informa- 
tion. We know not with what degree of care the 
sacred books were guarded, or to what extent copies 
were multiplied. 

A single fact shows that the sacred autograph of 

* See Joeh. i. 8. xxir. 26. 



28 

Moses had well nigh perished, in the idolatrous reigns 
of Manasseh and Amon, but was found, during the 
reign of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the 
temple. It cannot, however, be reasonably supposed, 
that there were no other copies of the laW scattered 
through the nation. It does indeed sedjftthat the 
young king had never seen the book, and was ignorant 
of its contents, until it was now read to him ; but 
while the copy had been misplaced, and buried among 
the ruins, many pious men might have possessed pri- 
vate copies. 

And, although, at the destruction of Jerusalem and 
of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious volume 
was. in all probability, destroyed with the ark and alb 
the holy apparatus of the sanctuary; yet we are not to 
credit the Jewish tradition,- too readily received by the 
Christian Fathers, that on this occasion all the copies 
of the Scriptures were lost, and that Ezra restoredU-he 
whole by miracle. This is a mere Jewish fabl^ie- 
pending on no higher authority than a passage ifc$he 
fourth book of Esdras, and is uttedy inconsistent with 
facts recorded in the sacred volume. We know that, 
Daniel' had a- copy of the Scriptures, for he quotes, 
them, and makes express mention of the Prophecies of 
Jeremiah. And Ezra is called, "a ready scribe ia 
the Law; 7 ' and it is said, in the sixth chapter of Ezra,, 
that when the tempfe was finished, the functions of the 
priests and Levites were regulated," as it i& written in 
the book of Moses." And this was many years before 
Ezra came to Jerusalem; And in the eighth chapter 
of Nehemiah, it is said, that Ezra, at the request* of the 
people, "brought the law before the congregation, and 
he read therein from the morning until mid day. 
And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all ths 



29 

people." It is evident, therefore, that all the copies 
of the Scriptures were not lost during the captivity. 
This story, no doubt, originated from two facts: the 
first, that the autographs in the temple, had been de- 
stroyed with the sacred edifice; and the second, that 
Ezra took great pains to have correct copies of the 
Scriptures prepared and circulated. 

It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of the 
present Canon of the Old Testament, should be attri- 
buted to Ezra. To assist him in his work, the Jewish 
writers inform us, that there existed in his time, a 
great synagogue, consisting of one hundred and 
twenty men, including Daniel and his three friends, 
Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego; the prophets 
Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the Just. 
But it is very absurd to suppose that all these lived at 
one time, and formed one Synagogue, as they are 
pleased to represent it: for, from the time of Daniel to 
that of Simon the Just, no less than two hundred 
and fifty years must have intervened. 

It is, however, no how improbable, that Ezra was 
assisted in this great work, by many learned and pious 
men, who were contemporary with him: and as 
prophets had always been the superintendents, as well 
as writers of the sacred volume, it is likely that the 
inspired men who lived at the same time as Ezra, 
would give attention to this work. But in regard to 
this great synagogue, the only thing probable is, that 
the men who are said to have belonged to it, did 
not live in one age, but successively, until the time 
of Simon the Just, who was made high priest about 
twenty-five years after the death of Alexander the 
Great. This opinion has its probability increased, by 
the corxsideration^ that the Canon of the Old Testa- 



30 

ment appears not to have been fully completed, until 
about the time of Simon the Just. Malachi seems to 
Jiave lived after the time of Ezra, and, therefore, his 
prophecy could not have been added to the Canon by 
this eminent scribe; unless we adopt the opinion of 
the Jews, who will have Malachi to be no other than 
Ezra himself; maintaining, that while Ezra was his 
proper name, he received that of Malachi, from the 
circumstance of his having been sent to superitend the 
religious concerns of the Jews; for the import of that 
name is, a messenger, or one sent. 

But this is not all,— in the book of Nehemiah,* men- 
tion is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius 
Codamanus, king of Persia, both of whom lived at 
least a hundred years after the time of Ezra. In the 
third chapter of the first book of Chronicles, the gene- 
alogy of the sous of Zerubbabel is carried down, at 
least to the time of Alexander the Great. This book, 
therefore, could not have been put into the Canon by 
Ezra; nor much earlier than the time of Simon the 
Just. The book of Esther also was probably added 
during this interval. 

The probable conclusion, therefore, is, that Ezra 
began this work, and collected and arranged all the 
sacred books which belonged to the Canon before his 
time, and that a succession of pious and learned men 
continued to pay attention to the Canon, until the 
whole was completed, about the lime of Simon the 
Just. After which, nothing was added to the Canon 
of the Old Testament. 

Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was 
added after the book of Malachi was written, except 



* Neh. xu. 22.. 



31 

a few names, and notes ; and that all the books be- 
longing to the Canon of the Old Testament, were 
collected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra 
himself. And this opinion seems to be the safest, and 
is no how incredible in itself. It accords also with the 
uniform tradition of the Jews, that Ezra completed 
the Canon of the Old Testament ; and that after 
Malachi there arose no prophet, who added any thing 
to the sacred volume. 

Whether the books were now collected into a single 
volume, or were bound up in several codices, is a 
question of no importance : if we can ascertain what 
books were received as Canonical, it matters not in 
what form they were preserved. It seems probable, 
however, that the sacred books were at this time dis- 
tributed into three volumes, thf Law; sfhe Pro- 
phets ; and the Hagiographa. This division, we 
know to be as ancient as the time of our Saviour, for 
he says, "These are the words which I spake unto 
you while I was yet with you, that all things might 
be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and io 
the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning 
me. J * Josephus, also makes mention of this division, 
and it is by the Jews, with one consent, referred to 
Ezra, as its author. 

In establishing the Canon of the Old Testament^ 
we might labor under considerable uncertainty and 
embarrassment, in regard to several books, were it not, 
that the whole of what were called, the Scriptures> 
and which were included in the threefold division, 
•mentioned above, received the explicit sanction of our 
I^ord. He was not backward to reprove the Jew^s for 

* Luke xxiv, 44. 



32 

disobeying, misinterpreting, and adding their traditions 
to the Scriptures, but he never drops a hint that they 
had been unfaithful or careless, in the preservation of 
the sacred books. So far from this, he refers to the 
Scriptures as an infallible rule, which "must be ful- 
filled,"* and "could not be broken.' 1 ? "Search the Scrip- 
ures,"t said he, "for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life, but they are they which testify of me." The errors 
of the Sadducees are attributedt o an ignorance of the 
Scriptures: and they are never mentioned but with 
the highest respect, and as the unerring word of God. 
The apostle Paul, also, referring principally, if not 
wholly, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, says : 
i l And that from a child thou hast known the Holy 
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 
salvation. § All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God."§ They are also called by this apostle, "the 

ORACLES OF God;" "THE LIVELY ORACLES," " THE 

word of God ;" and when quotations are made from 
David, it is represented as "the Holy Ghost speaking 
by the mouth of David.''!! The testimony of Peter is 
not less explicit, for he says, " The prophecy came not 
in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "if And 
the Apostle James speaks of the Scriptures, with 
equal confidence and respect : " And receive with 
meekness/' says he, "the ingrafted word which is able 
to save your souls."** "And the Scripture was fulfilled 
which saith," &c. "Do ye think that the Scripture 
saith in vain?"ff &c. 



* Mark xir. 49. f John x. 35. J John t. 39. 

$ 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. || Acts i. 16. iv. 25. f 2 Pet. I 2L 
** James i. 21—23. ff James iv. 5. 



33 

We have, therefore, an important point established 
with the utmost certainty, that the volume of Scripture 
which existed in the time of Christ and his apostles,. 
w T as uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an in- 
fallible rule. Now, if we can ascertain what books 
were then included in the Sacred Volume, we shall be 
able to settle the Canon of the Old Testament without 
uncertainty. 

But here lies the difficulty. Neither Christ, nor any 
of his apostles has given us a catalogue of the books, 
which composed the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
They have distinctly quoted a number of these books,. 
and so far the evidence is complete. We know, that 
the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms 
were included in the Canon. But this does not ascer- 
tain, particularly, whether the very same books which 
we now find in the Old Testament were then found 
in it, and no others. It is necessary then, to resort to 
Other sources of information. And happily, the Jewish 
historian Josephus furnishes us with the very informa- 
tion which we want; not indeed, as explicitly as we 
could wish, but sufficiently so, to lead us to a very 
satisfactory conclusion. He does not name the books 
of the Old Testament, but he numbers them, and so 
describes them, that there is scarcely room for any 
mistake. The important passage to which we refer^ 
is in his first book against Apion, "We have'' says he 
"only two-and-twenty books, which are to be believed 
as of divine authority — of which five are the books of 
Moses. From the death of Moses, to the reign of 
Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes > king of Persia, the 
Prophets who were the successors of Moses have writ- 
ten in thirteen books. The remaining four books 
contain hymns to God, and documents of ffie, for the 



34 

use of men." Now, the five books of Moses, are uni- 
versally agreed to be, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The thirteen books, 
written by the prophets, will include Joshua, Judges 
with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with 
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve minor 
Prophets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles. The 
four remaining books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle- 
siastes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the 
whole number twenty-two; the Canon then existing 
is proved to be the same, as that which we now pos- 
sess. It would appear, indeed, that these books might 
more conveniently be reckoned twenty-four; and this 
is the present method of numbering them, by the 
modern Jews; but formerly, the number was regulated 
by that of the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of 
twenty-two letters, therefore, they annexed the small 
book of Ruth to Judges; and probably it is a continu- 
ation of this book by the same author. They added, 
also, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, to his prophecy, 
and this was natural enough. As to the Minor 
Prophets, which form twelve separate books in our 
Bibles, they were, anciently, always reckoned one book, 
so they are considered in every ancient catalogue, and 
in all quotations from them. 

It will not be supposed that any change could have 
occuired in the Canon from the time of our Saviour 
and his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote. 
Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the 
apostles, as he was born about the time of Paul's con- 
version to Christianity, and was therefore grown up tol 
man's age, long before the death of this apostle; and 
the apostle John probably survived him. And it rnustj 
be remembered, that Josephus is here giving his testiJ 



mony to a public fact: he is declaring what bookg 
were received as divine by his nation; and he does it 
without hesitation, or inconsistency. ••'We have." says 
he, u only twenty-two books, which are believed to be 
of divine authority."" 

We are able also to adduce other testimony, to prove 
the same thing. Some of the early Christian Fa- 
thers, who had been brought up in Paganism, when 
they embraced Christianity, were curious in their in- 
quiries into the Canon of the Old Testament; and the 
result of the researches of some of them, still remain. 
Melito bishop of Sard is. travelled into Judea, for the 
very purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And 
although, his own writings are lost, Eusebius has pre- 
served his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament ; 
from which it appears, that the very same books were, 
in his day, received into the Canon, as are now found 
in our Hebrew Bibles. And the interval between 
Melito and Josephus is not a hundred years, so that 
no alteration in the Canon can be reasonably supposed 
to have taken place in this period. Very soon after 
Melito, Ortgen furnishes us with a catalogue of the 
books of the Old Testament, which perfectly accords 
with our Canon, except that he omits the Minor 
Prophets; which omission must have been a mere 
slip of the pen, in him or his copyist, as it is certain 
that he received this as a book of Holy Scripture: 
and the number of the books of the Old Testament, 
given by him in this very place, cannot be completed, 
without reckoning the Twelve Minor Prophets as one. 

After Origen, we have catalogues, in succession, not 
only by men of the first authority in the church, but 
by councils, consisting of numerous bishops, all which 
are perfectly the same as our own. It will be sufficient 



S6 

tnerely to fefer to these sources of information. Cata- 
logues of the books of the Old Testament have beeiii 
given by Athanasius; by Cyril ; by Augustine; 
by Jerome; by Rufin; by the council of Lao- 
dice a, in their LX. Canon; and by the council 
of Carthage. And when it is considered, that all 
these catalogues exactly correspond with our present 
Canon of the Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think 
must appear complete to every impartial mind, that 
the Canon of the Old Testament is settled upon the 
clearest historical grounds* There seems to be nothing 
to be wished for further, in the confirmation of this point* 
But if all this testimony had been wanting, there is 
still a source of evidence, to which we might refer 
with the utmost confidence, as perfectly conclusive on 
this point; I mean the fact that these books have been, 
ever since the time of Christ and his apostles, in the 
keeping of both Jews and Christians, who have been 
constantly arrayed in opposition to each other; so that 
it was impossible that any change should have been 
made in the Canon, by either party, without being 
immediately detected by the other. And the conclusive 
evidence that no alteration in the Canon has occurred, 
is, the perfect agreement of these hostile parties, in 
regard to the books of the Old Testament, at this time. 
On this point, the Jew and Christian are harmonious. 
There is no complaint of addition to, or diminution of, 
the sacred books, on either side. The Hebrew Bible of 
the Jew, is the Bible of the Christian. There is here 
no difference. A learned Jew and Christian have 
even been united, in publishing an excellent edition of 
the Hebrew Bible.* Now, if any alteration in the 

* See the Biblia Hebraica, edited by Leusden and Athias* 



37 

Canon has occurred, it must have been by the concert, 
or collusion of both parties, but how absurd this idea 
is, must be manifest to all. 

I acknowledge what is here said of the agreement of 
Christians and Jews, can only be said in relation to 
Protestant Christians. For as to those of the Romish 
and Greek Communions, they have admitted other 
books into the Canon, which Jews and Protestants 
hold to be apocryphal; but these books will form the 
subject of a particular discussion, in the sequel of this 
work. <jg» 

The fact is important, that a short time after the 
Canon of the Old Testament was closed, a translation 
was made of the whole of the books into the Greek 
language. This translation was made, at Alexandria, 
in Egypt, at the request, it is said, of Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus, king of Egypt, that be might, have a copy 
of these sacred books in the famous library which he 
was engaged in collecting. It is called, the Septua- 
gint, from its being made, according to the accounts 
which have been handed down, by seventy, or rather 
seventy-tw r o, men ; six from each of the tribes of Israel. 
So many fabulous things have been reported con- 
cerning this version, that it is very difficult to ascertain 
the precise truth. But it is manifest from internal 
evidence, that it was not the work of one hand, nor, 
probably, of one set of translators : for, while some 
books are rendered with great accuracy, and in a very 
litteral manner, others are translated with little care, and 
the meaning of the original is very imperfectly given. 

The probability is, that the Pentateuch was first 
translated, and the other books were added from time 
to time, by different hands ; but when the work was 

D 



38 

• 

once begun, it i3 not likely that it would be long 
before the whole was completed. 

Now this Greek version contains all the books which 
are found in our Canonical Hebrew Bibles. It is a 
good witness therefore to prove, that all these books 
were in the Canon, when this version was made. 
The apocryphal books, which have long been cou- 
nected with this version, will furnish a subject for 
consideration hereafter. 

There is, moreover, a distinct and remarkable testi- 
mony to the antiquity of the fmj; books of Moses in 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has existed in a 
form entirely separate from the Jewish copies, and in 
a character totally different from that in which the 
Hebrew Bible has been for many ages written. It 
has also been preserved and handed down to us, by 
a people, who have ever been hostile to the Jews. 
This Pentateuch has, without doubt, been transmitted 
through a separate channel, ever since the ten tribes 
of Israel were carried captive. It furnishes authentic 
testimony to the great antiquity of the books of Moses 7 
and shows how little they have been corrupted, during 
the lapse of nearly three thousand years. 



SECTION III. 

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN IMPORTANCE 

OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CANONICAL AND 

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS SIX BOOKS OF THIS CLASS 

PRONOUNCED CANONICAL BY THE COUNCIL OF 

TRENT NOT IN THE HEBREW, NOR RECEIVED 

BY THE JEWS, ANCIENT OR MODERN. 

The word Apocrypha signifies, concealed, obscure, 
without authority. In reference to the Bible, it is 
employed to designate such books as claim a place in 
the sacred volume, but which are not Canonical. It 
is said to have been first used by Melito, bishop of 
Sardis. 

An inquiry into this subject cannot be uninteresting 
to the friends of the Bible; for it behoves them to 
ascertain, on the best evidence, what books belong to 
the sacred volume, and also, on what grounds other 
books are rejected from the Canon. This subject 
assumes a higher importance from the fact, that 
Christians are much divided on this point; for, some 
receive as of Canonical authority, books which others 
reject as spurious, or consider merely as human com- 
positions. On such a point, every Christian should 
form his opinion upon the best information which he 
can obtain. 

In controversy with the Romanists, this subject 
meets us at the very threshold. It is vain to dispute 



40 

about particular doctrines of Scripture, until it is de- 
termined what books are to be received, as Scripture. 

It has also been recently found, that this was a 
point of great importance, in the circulation of the 
Bible. This book ought not to be distributed, maimed 
of some of its parts ; nor should we circulate mere 
human compositions, as the word of God. The 
Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
w r ere recently called upon to decide this question, in a 
case- of great practical importance. That noble and 
Catholic society, have, from time to time, aided the 
exertions of the pious and liberally minded members 
of the Romish church, in circulating their own versions 
of the New Testament. Here there existed no differ- 
ence of opinion, as to the books which were Canonical J 
but they lately received an application from Professor 
Yan Ess, to grant him aid from their funds, to enable 
him to put the Old Testament also into circulation, 
among the people of his communion. To this no 
objection was at first made, and the funds of the 
Society were applied to aid in printing and circulating 
Bibles which contained the apocrypha, on the Con- 
tinent of Europe. But the Auxiliary Bible Society 
of Edinburgh, nat being satisfied with this proceeding, 
sent up to the Parent Society a protest against it, as 
being inconsistent with the radical principle of their 
constitution ; viz. that they would circulate the Bible 
without note or comment. This brought the question 
before the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society, under very interesting circumstances, and the 
opinion of the friends of the Society appeared to be 
much divided; so that great fears were entertained, 
lest it should become the occasion of disturbing the 
harmony of this important Association, But the 



41 

business was managed by the Committee, with that 
consummate wisdom which has uniformly marked 
their counsels and proceedings. The whole subject 
was referred to a select and learned sub-committee ; 
who, after mature deliberation, brought in a report, 
which was adopted, and led to the following wise 
resolution in the General Committee, viz. "That the 
funds of the Society be applied to the printing and 
circulation of the Canonical books of Scripture, to the 
exclusion of those books, which are termed apocryphal ; 
and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at 
the expense of the Society, and whether such copies 
consist of the whole, or of any part of such books, be 
invariably issued bound, no other book whatever being 
bound with them : and farther, that all money grants, 
to societies or individuals, be made only in conformity 
with the principle of this regulation. v 

"In the Sacred Yolume, as it is to be hereafter dis- 
tributed by the Society, there is to be nothing but 
divine truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by all 
Christians to be such. Of course, all may unite in the 
work of distribution, even should they regard the 
volume as containing but part of the inspired writings; 
just as they might in the circulation of the Pentateuch, 
or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New 
Testament. Such harmonious operation would not, 
however, be possible, if the books of the apocrypha 
were mingled, or joined with the rest: and besides, 
those who have the strongest objection to the apocry- 
pha, are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in 
active and liberal efforts to send the word of God to 
all people." 

This judicious decision of the Committee of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society depends for its 

d2 



42 

correctness, on the supposition, that the books of the 
apocrypha are not Canonical ; for, whatever may be 
said about circulating a part of the Bible, it was un- 
doubtedly the original object of this Society to print 
and circulate the whole of the Sacred Volume. Hence 
appears the practical importance of the inquiry which 
we have here instituted, to ascertain whether these 
books have any claim, whatever, to a place in the 
Sacred Canon. 

At a very early period of the Christian church, great 
pains were taken to distinguish between such books as 
were inspired and Canonical, and such as were written 
by uninspired men. It has never been doubted among 
Christians, that the Canonical books only, were of 
divine authority, and furnished an infallible rule of 
faith and practice; but it has not been agreed what 
books ought to be considered Canonical, and what 
apocryphal. In regard to those which have already 
been enumerated, as belonging to the Old Testament, 
there is a pretty general consent of Jews and Chris- 
tians, of Romanists and Protestants : but in regard to 
some other books, there is a wide difference of opinion. 
The council of Trent, in their fourth session, gave 
a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among 
which sre included, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Eccle- 
siasticus, Baruch, and two books of the Maccabees* 
Besides, they include under the name Esther and 
Daniel, certain additional chapters, which are not 
found in the Hebrew copies. The book of Esther is 
made to consist of sixteen chapters ; and prefixed to 
the book of Daniel, is the History of Susannah; the 
Song of the Three Children, is inserted in the third 

* See Note A. 



43 

chapter ; and the History of Bel and the Dragon 
is added at the end of this book. Qjjjjgr books which 
are found in the Greek, or Latin Bibles, they rejected, 
as apocryphal ; as the third and fourth books of 
Esdras;* the third book of Maccabees; the cli. Psalm; 
the Appendix to Job; and the Preface to Lamentations. 
Both these classes of books, all denominations of 
Protestants consider apocryphal ; but as the English 
church, in her Liturgy, directs, that certain lessons 
shall be read from the former, for the instruction of the 
people, but not for confirmation of doctrine, they are 
retained^ in the large copies of the English Bible, but 
are not mingled with the Canonical Books, as in the 
Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testament, 
under the title of apocrypha. It is certainly to be 
regretted, that these books are permitted to be included 
in the same volume, which contains the lively oracles, 
— the word of God, — the Holy Scriptures ; all of 
which were given by inspiration : and more to be 
regretted still, that they should be read in the church, 
promiscuously with the lessons taken from the Cano- 
nical books ; especially as no notice is given to the 

* The First and Second books of Esdras, are very fre-"* 
quently called the Third and Fourth Id which case, the two 
Canonical books Ezra, and Nehemiah, are reckoned the First 
and Second : for both these books have been ascribed to Ezra 
as their authorSbut these are not included in the list of Cano- 
nical books, sectioned by the Council of Trent, and therefore 
they do not come into controversy. Indeed, the Second of 
these books is not found even in the Greek, but only in the 
Latin Vulgate, and is so replete with fables and false state- 
ments, that it has never been esteemed of any value. They 
are both, however, retained in our larger English Bibles ; and 
are honored with the foremost place, in the order of the apocry- 
phal books. 



44 

people, that what is read from these books is apocry- 
phal ; and as in the Prayer-Book of the Episcopal 
church the tables which refer to the lessons te be read, 
have this title perfixed — " Tables of lessons of Holy 
Scripture to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer, 
throughout the year." Now, however good and instruc- 
tive these apocryphal lessons may be, it never can be 
justified, that they should thus be put on a levelwith 
the word of God.* 

Bu! it is our object, at present, to show, that none of 
these books, Canonized by the Council of Trent, and 
inserted in our larger English Bibles, are Canonical. 

1. The first argument by which it may be proved 
that these books do not belong to the Canon of the 
Old Testament, is, that they are not found in the 
Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew 
language, but in the Greek, which was not known to 
the Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased, and 
the Canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is ren- 
dered probable, indeed, that some of them were written 
originally in the Chaldaic. Jerome testifies this to be 
the fact, in regard to 1 Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus ; 
and he says, that he translated the book of Tobit, out 
of Chaldee into Latin ; but this book is now found in 
the Greek, and therms good reason for believing, that 
it was written, originally, in this language. It is cer- 
tain, however, that none of these books \jere composed 
in the pure Hebrew of the Old TestsmemP 

Hottinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the 
whole of the apocrypha in pure Hebrew, among the 



* See Tables perfixed to the Book of Common Prayer ; 
also, the Sixth Article of Religion of the Episcopal 
Church. 



45 

Jews ; but he entertains no doubt, that it was translated 
into that language, in modern times: just as the whole 
New Testament has recently been translated into pure 
Hebrew. 

It is the common opinion of the Jews, and of the 
Christian Fathers, that Malachi was the last of the 
Old Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain 
authors, afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned Ca- 
nonical ; and there is good reason for believing, that 
those books were written long alter the time of Ezra 
and Malachi ; and some of them, perhaps, later than 
the commencement of the Christian era. 

2. These books, though probably written by Jews > 
have never been received into the Canon, by that peo- 
ple. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the 
same mind. Joseph us declares, " That no more than 
twenty-two books were received as inspired by his 
nation." Philo, who refers often to the Old Testament^ 
in his writings, never makes the least mention of them ; 
nor are they recognized in the Talmud, as Canonical. 
Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbies expressly reject 
them. 

Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, say» ? 
•• They are received by Christians, not by us." 

R. Gedaliah, after giving a catalogue of the 
books of the Old Testament, with some account of 
their authors, adds these words, " It is worth while to 
know, that the nations of the world wrote many other 
books, which are included- in their systems of sacred 
books, but are not in our hands." To which he adds, 
" They say that some of these are found in the 
Chaldee; sonie in the Arabic; and some in the Greek 
language." 

R. Azariah ascribes the bqok called, the Wisdom 



46 

op Solomon, to Philo ; and R. Gedaliah in speak- 
ing of the same book says, " That if Solomon ever 
wrote it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to 
send it to some of the kings in the remotest parts of 
the East." "But," says he, "Ezra put his hand only 
to those books which were published by the prophets, 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in 
the sacred language ; and our wise men prudently and 
deliberately resolved to sanction none, but such as were 
established and confirmed by him." 

" This book," says he, "the Gentiles (i. e. Christains) 
have added to their Bible." 

" Their wise men," says Buxtorf, " pronounced this 
book to be apocryphal." 

The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be writ- 
ten by the son of Sirach, is expressly numbered 
among apocryphal books in the Talmud. " In the 
book of the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to read." 

Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, 
*' Those things which are alleged from a verse in 
Ecclesiasticus are nothing to the purpose, because that 
is an apocryphal book." Another of their writers says, 
" That book of the son of Sirach is added to our 
twenty-four sacred books, by the Romans." This 
book also, they call extraneous, which some of the 
Jews prohibit to be read. With what face then can 
the Romanists pretend, that this book was added to 
the Canon, not long before the time of Josephus? 

" Baruch," soys one of their learned men, " is 
received by Christians," (j. e. Romanists,) but not 
by us." 

Of Tobit, it is said in Zemach David, "Know 
then, that this book of Tobias is one of those which 
Christians join with the Hagiographa," A little 



47 

afterwards, it is said, "Know then, that Tobit, which 
is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was translated 
from Latin into Hebrew, by Sebastian Munster." 
The same writer affirms of the history of Susannah, 
" That it is received by Christians, but not by us." 

The Jews, in the time of Jerome, entertained no 
other opinion of these books, than those who came 
after them ; for in his Preface to Daniel he informs us, 
" That he had heard one of the Jewish doctors 
deriding the history of Susannah, who said, < It was 
invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.' "* 

The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the 
other books, which we call apocryphal, as is manifest 
from all the copies of the Hebrew 7 Bible, extant ; for ? 
udoubtedly, if they believed that any of these books 
were Canonical, they would give them a place in their 
sacred volume. But will any ask, what is the opinion 
of the Jews to us? I answer, much, on this point. 
The oracles of God were commited to them ; and they 
preserved them with a religious care, until the advent 
of Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding to 
the Sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. Since 
their nation has been in dispersion, copies of the Old 
Testament, in Hebrew, have been scattered all over 
the world, so that it was impossible to produce a 
universal alteration in the Canon. But it is needless 
to argue this point, for it is agreed by all, that these 
books never were received by the Jewish nation. 

3. The third argument against the Canonical 
authority of these books, is derived from the total 
silence respecting them, in the New Testament. 
They are never quoted by Christ and his apostles. 

* See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hortinger. 



48 

This fact, however, is disputed by the Romanists, and 
they even attempt to establish their right to a place in 
the Canon, from the citations, which they pretend 
have been made from these books by the apostles. 
They refer to Rom. xi. and Heb. xi., where they 
allege, that Paul has cited passages from the Book of 
"Wisdom. "For who hath known the mind of the 
Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?" — "For before 
his translation he had this testimony that he pleased 
God." But both these passages are taken directly from 
the Canonical books of the Old Testament. The 
first, is nearly in the words of Isaiah; and the last, 
from the book of Genesis; their other examples are as 
wide of the mark as these, and need not be set down. 

It has already been shown that these books were 
included in the volume quoted, and referred to by 
Christ and his apostles, under the title of, the Scrip- 
tures, and are entirely omitted by Josephus in his 
account of the Sacred books. It would seem, there- 
fore, that in the time of Christ, and for some time 
afterwards, they were utterly unknown, or wholly 
disregarded. 



SECTION I?. 

Testimonies of the christian fathers, and 
of other learned men down to the time 
of the council of trent, respecting the 
apocrypha. 

The fourth argument, is, that these books were not 
received as Canonical, by the Christian Fathers, but 
were expressly declared to be apocryphal. 

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in 
all his writings, from any apocryphal book. 

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment which we have, after the times of the apostles, 
from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop 
of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which 
is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: 
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since 
you have often earnestly requested of me, in conse- 
quence of your love of learning, a collection of the 
Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and 
what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our 
whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain 
an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it 
respects their number, and order, I have used diligence 
to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection 
towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become 
acquainted with the word; and that striving after 
eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer 

E 



50 

these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the 
East, and to the very place where these things were 
published and transacted, and having made diligent 
search after the books of the Old Testament, I now 
subjoin, and send you the following catalogue: — "Five 
books of Moses, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Joshua, Judges, Ruth ? 
Four books of Kings, Two of Chronicles, The Psalms 
of David, The Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom,* 
Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."t 

Origen also says, "We should not be ignorant, that 
the Canonical books are the same which the Hebrews 
delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, 
according to the number of letters of the Hebrew 
alphabet." Then he sets down, in order, the names 
of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. 

Athanasius, in his Synonopis, says, "All the 
Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired \ 
neither are they indefinite in their number, but deter- 
mined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old 
Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. 



* Whether Melito, in his catalogue, by the word Wisdom, 
meant to designate a distinct book; or whether it was used 
as an other name for Proverbs, seems doubtful. The latter 
has generally been understood to be the sense; and this 
accords with the understanding of the ancients; for Rufin, 
in his translation of his passage of Eusebius, renders sra^to/ 
7i tfo(p/a Salomonis Proverbia, quce est sapientia; that is, The 
Proverbs of Solomon, which is Wisdom. Pineda, a learend 
Romanist, says, " The word Wisdom should here be taken as 
explicative of the former, and should be understood to mean, 
The Proverbs." 

t Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c. 24. 



51 

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Four books of Kings, Chroni- 
cles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 
Job. The twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
Daniel." 

Hilary, who was contemporary w T ith Athanasius, 
and resided in France, has numbered the Canonical 
books of the Old Testament, in the following manner, 
"The five of Mosess, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh 
of Judges, including Ruth ; the eighth of first and 
second Kings; the ninth of third and fourth Kings; 
the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh: 
Ezra (which included Nehemiah ;) the twelfth, the 
Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of 
Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth ; the 
Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth ; then, Isaiah and 
Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, 
Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full 
number of twenty-two." And in his Preface, he adds, 
"That these books were thus numbered by our ances- 
tors, and handed down by tradition from them."* 

Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study 
the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as 
were apocryphal : and then gives a list of the books 
of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish 
method, makes the number two-and-tw t enty. He 
complains of some, that mingled the apocryphal books 
with those that were inspired, " of the truth of which 
last," says he, "we have the most perfect persuasion; 
therefore it seemed good to me, to enumerate the 
Canonical books, from the beginning; and those which 
belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, 
according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I 

* Proleg. in Psalmos, 



52 

have understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let no 
one add to these divine books, nor take any thing 
away from them. I think it necessary to add this, 
that there are other books besides those which I have 
enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, 
do not apertain to it; but were proposed by the early 
Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction 
which they contain." Then, he expressly names, as 
belonging to this class, the wisdom of Solonon, 

THE WISDOM OF SlRACH, ESTHER, JUDITH, and 
ToBIT.* 

Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a cata- 
logue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly 
corresponding with that which Protestants receive. 
" Which," says he, t: we believe agreeably to the 
tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the 
Holy Spirit." 

Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and 
Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament 
into four divisions, of five each. " The first of which 
contains the Law; next, five Poetical books, Job, 
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs j in the 
third division, he places Joshua, Judges, including 
Ruth, First and Second Chronicles, Four books of 
Kings. The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, 
Ezra and Esther." Thus he makes up the number 

TWENTY-TWO. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his 
catechumen diligently to learn from the church, what 
books appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and 
he says, "Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read 



* Epist. ad Tlieod. and Lib. Carm. 



53 

the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of 
the Old Testament, which were translated by the 
Seventy-two interpreters.'' And in another place, 
"Meditate, as was said, in the twenty-two books of 
the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give you 
their names/' Here follows a catalogue, agreeing 
with those already given, except that he adds Baruch 
to the list, When Baruch is mentioned as making 
one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the 
Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those 
parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch 
was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if 
we understand them as referring to the separate book, 
now called Baruch, the number, which they are so 
careful to preserve, will be exceeded. This apocryphal 
Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never 
mentioned separately, by any ancient author, as Bel- 
larmine confesses. This book was originally written 
in Greek, bur our present copies differ exceedingly 
from the old Latin translation. 

The council of Laodicea forbad the reading of 
any books in the churches, but such as were Canoni- 
cal: and that the people might know what these were. 
a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which 
we now receive. 

Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Atha- 
nasius takes no notice of these books. Eusebius, 
in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Macca- 
bees, and adds, '-These books are not received as 
divine Scriptures.' 5 

Philastrius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the 
latter part of the fourth Century, in a work on Heresy, 
says, " It was determined by the .apostles and their 
successors, that nothing should be read in the Catholic 

e2 



54 

church, but the Law, Prophets, Evangelists," 
&c. — And he complains of certain Heretics, " That 
they used the book of Wisdom, by the son of 
Sirach, who lived long after Solomon." 

Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the know- 
ledge of the Scriptures, declares, " That all the divine 
books of the Old Testament were originally written in 
the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were 
received."* 

But Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently 
studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the 
best Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more 
fully and accurately than any of the rest of the 
Fathers. In his general Preface to his version of the 
Scriptures, he mentions the books which he had 
translated out of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides 
them,*' says he, "'must be placed among the apocry- 
phal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to 
Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, 
Judith, Tobit, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. 
I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew 
(Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and as the style shows, 
it must have been composed in that language.*' And 
in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned 
one book by the Jews,) he says, " Let no one be 
disturbed, that I have edited but one book under this 
name ; nor let any one please himself with the dreams 
contained in the third and fourth apocryphal books, 
ascribed to this author ; for with the Hebrews, Ezra 
and Nehemiah make but one book ; and those things 
not contained in this are to be rejected, as not belonging 
to the Canon." And in his preface to the books of 

* Horn. 4. In Gen, 



55 

Solomon, he speaks "Of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus: 
the former of which," he says, "he found in Hebrew, 
(Chaldee,) but not the latter, which is never found among 
the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours of the 
Grecian eloquence." He then adds, " As the church 
reads the book of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, 
but does not receive them among the Canonical 
Scriptures, so also, she may read these two books for 
the edification of the common people, but not as 
authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the 
church/' 

Again, in his Preface to Jeremiah, he says, :i The 
book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in 
Hebrew, nor esteemed Canonical; therefore. I have 
passed it over." And in his Preface to Daniel, " This 
book among the Hebrews has neither the history 
op Susanna, nor the song of the three Chil- 
dren, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, 
which we have retained, lest we should appear to the 
unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred 
Volume." 

In the Preface to Tobit, he says, " The Hebrews cut 
oft' the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine 
Scriptures." 

And in his Preface to Judith, " Among the Hebrews, 
Judith is placed among the Hiagiographa, which are 
not of authority to determine controversies.*' 

Rufin, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, 
* That there were some books, which were not called 
Canonical, but received by our ancestors , as the Wis 
dom of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of 
Sirach; of the same order, are the books of Tobit, 
Judith, and the Maccabees." 

Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in 



56 

the Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says> 
"Concerning which thing we do not act inordinately, 
although we bring our testimony from a book, which 
is not Canonical.*' 

Augustine, is the only one among the Fathers, 
who lived within four hundred years after the apostles, 
who seems to favor the introduction of these six 
disputed books, into the Canon. In his work On 
Christian Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of 
the Old Testament, among which he inserts, Tobit, 
Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, 
Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These two, last men, 
tioned, he says, u are called Solomon's, on account of 
their resemblance to his writings ; although it is 
known, that one of them was composed by the Son 
of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the 
prophetical books." But this opinion he retracted 
afterwards.* 

Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and 
Latin Bibles, in which those books had been intro- 
duced, and we must suppose, unless we would make 
him contradict himself, that he meant in this place, 
merely to enumerate the books then contained in the 
Sacred volume; for in many other places, he clearly 
shews, that he entertained the same opinion of the 
books of the Old Testament, as the other Fathers. 

In his celebrated work, Of the city of God, he 
expresses this opinion most explicitly,— " In that whole 
period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, 
after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah, and Ezra, they had 
no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our 
Saviour, As our Lord says, The Law and the 

* See his Retractions. 



57 

Prophets were until John. And even the reprobate 
Jews hold, that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, 
were the last books received into Canonical authority." 

In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, " If 
any adversary should say, you have forged these 
prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced — The 
Jews are our librarians." And on the lvi. Psalm, 
"When we wish to prove to the Pagans, that Christ 
was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession 
of the Jews; — they have all these Scriptures." 

And again, in the work first cited, "The Israelitish 
nation, to whom the oracles of God were intrusted? 
never confounded false prophecies with the true, but 
all these writings are harmonious." Then, in another 
work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he 
says, "This writing, the Jews never received, in the 
same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the 
Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony, as by his 
own witnesses." And frequently in his works, he 
confines the Canonical books, to those properly in- 
cluded in this threefold division. He also repeatedly 
declares, that the Canonical scriptures which are of 
most eminent authority, are the books committed to 
the Jews. But in the eighteenth book of The city 
of God, speaking of Judith, he says, "Those things 
which are written in this book, it is said the Jews 
have never received into the Canon of Scripture.." 
And in the seventeenth book of the same work, 
"There are three books of Solomon, which have been 
received into Canonical authority, Proverbs, Eccle- 
siastes, and Canticles ; the other two, Wisdom and 
Ecclesiasticus, have been called by his name, through 
a custom which prevailed, on account of their simili- 
tude to his writings; but the more learned are certain 



58 

that they are not his; and they cannot be brought 
forward with much confidence, for the conviction of 
gain say ers." 

He allows, that the book of Wisdom may be read 
to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other 
tracts ; but he does not insist, that the testimonies 
taken from it are decisive. 

And respecting Ecclesiasticus, he says, when 
speaking of Samuel's prophesying after his death, 
"But if this book is objected to, because it is not found 
in the Canon of the Jews," &c. 

His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the 
Canon is repeated and explicit. "The calculation of 
the times after the restoring of the temple is not found 
in the Holy Scriptures, which are called Canonical, 
but in certain other books, among which are the 
two books of Maccabees. — The Jews do not receive 
the Maccabees, as the Law and the Prophets." 

It may be admitted, however, that Augustine 
entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal 
books, but it is certain, that he did not put them on a 
level with the genuine Canonical books. He mentions 
a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it 
appears, that although the apocryphal books were 
read in some of the churches, they were not read as 
Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the Canonical 
books ; for he informe us, that they were not permitted 
to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scrip- 
tures, but from a lower place in the church/ 

Innocent the first, who lived about the same time, 
is also adduced as a witness, to prove that these dis- 
puted books were then received into the Canon. But 
the epistle which contains his calalogue is extremely 
auspicious. No mention is made of this epistle by any 



59 

writer for three hundred years after the death of Ixxc 
cent. But it is no how necessary to our argument^ 
to deny, that in the end of the fourth, and beginning 
of the fifth century, some individuals, and perhaps 
some councils, received these books as Canonical ; yet 
there is strong evidence that this was not the opinion of 
the universal church : for in the council of Chalcedon, 
which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the Canons of the 
council of Laodicea which contain a catalogue of the 
genuine books of the Old Testament, are adopted, 
xind it has been shewn already, that these apocryphal 
books were excluded from that catalogue. 

But it can be proved, that even until the time of the 
meeting of the council of Trent, by which these books 
were solemnly Canonized, the most learned and 
judicous of the Polish writers, adhere to the opinions of 
Jerome, and the ancients : or at least, make a marked 
distinction between these disputed books, and those 
which are acknowledged to be Canonical by all. A 
few testimonies from distinguished writers, from the 
commencement of the sixth century, down to the era 
of the Reformation, shall now be given. 

It deserves to be particularly observed, herr that in 
one of the laws of the Emperor Justinian, concern- 
ing Ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, M That the 
Canons of the first four general councils should be 
received, and have the force of laws." 

Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the 
Creation, makes '-The number of books which God 
hath appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more 
than twenty-two; although he speaks in very high 
terms of "Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. 

Leontius. a learned and accurate writer, in his 



60 

book against the Sects, acknowledges no other Ca* 
nonical books of the Old Testament, but those which 
the Hebrews received ; namely, Twelve Historical 
books, Five Prophetical, Four of Doctrine and Instruc- 
tion, and one of Psalms; making the number twenty- 
two, as usual ; and he makes not the least mention of 
any others. 

Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the 
seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an 
apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, 
and says, "Though it be not taken from the Canoni- 
cal Scripture, yet it is cited from a book which was 
published for the edification of the church." 

Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the Canonical 
books of the Old Testament into three orders, the 
Law r , the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and after- 
wards adds — "That there is a fourth order of books, 
which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old 
Testament." Here he names these books, and says, 
" Though the Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the 
church has received them among the Canonical Scrip- 
tures." 

JohNviDamascene, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived 
early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew 
Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two- 
and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit, 
he says not one word; but he speaks "Of Wisdom 
and Ecclesiasticus, as elegant and virtuous writings, 
yet not to be numbered among the Canonical books of 
Scripture, never having been laid up in the ark of the 
Covenant." 

Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of 
dividing the books of the Old Testament into three 



61 

classes : but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees 
from the Canonical books, by classing them with the 
writings of Josephus, and Julius the African. 

Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, "That the book 
of the son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and 
dubious Scripture." 

Rupert, a learned man of the twelfth century^ 
expressly rejects the book of Wisdom, from the Canon. 

Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the 
authentic . Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the 
six disputed books, and says, "They are useful and 
commendable in the church, but are not to be placed 
in the same dignity with the rest."' 

Hugo de S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who 
resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the 
Old Testament, which includes no others but the two? 
and-twenty received from the Jews: and of Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, he says, "They are 
used in the church, but not written in the Canon." 

Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth cen- 
tury in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, 
"That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon: 
and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 
the Maccabees, are not esteemed Canonical, although 
they are read in the churches." 

Peter Lombard, in his Scholastic History, enu- 
merates the books of the Old Testament, thus — Five 
books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the 
Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six dis- 
puted books; but in his Preface to Tobit, he says 
expressly, "That it is in no order of the Canon ;" and 
of Judith, "that Jerome, and the Hebrews, place it in 
the apocrypha." Moreover, he calls the story of Bel 

F 



62 

and the Dragon a fable, and says, that the History of 
Susannah, is not as true as it should be. 

In this century, also, lived John of Salisbury, 
an Englishman, a man highly respected, in his time. 
In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, 
and professes to follow Jerome, and undoubtedly to 
believe that there are but twenty-two books in the 
Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names in 
order, and adds, " That neither the book of Wisdom, 
nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the 
Pastor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed Canonical," 

In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned 
was the same, as we may see, by the Ordinary 
Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which, 
many persons were concerned, and which was highly 
approved by all the doctors and pastors in the Western 
churches. In the Preface to this Gloss, they are 
reproached with ignorance who hold all the books put 
into the one volume of Scripture, in equal veneration. 
The difference between these books is asserted to be as 
great, as between certain and doubtful works. The 
Canonical books are declared, " To have been written 
by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were 
the authors of the others, is unknown. " Then it is 
declared, " That the church permitteth the reading of 
the apocryphal books, for devotion and instruction, but 
not for authority to decide matters of controversy in 
faith. And that there are no more than twenty-two 
Canonical books of the Old Testament, and all besides 
are apocryphal." Thus we have the common judg- 
ment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct 
opposition to the decree of the Council of Trent, in the 
sixteenth. But this is not all, for when the writers of 



63 

this Gloss come to the apocryphal books, they prefix a 
caution, as — " Here begins the book of Tobit, which is 
not in the Canon ;" — " Here begins the book of Judith, 
which is not in the Canon," and so of every one of 
them ; and to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the 
Fathers. 

Hugo, the cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote 
commentaries on all the Scriptures, which were uni- 
versally esteemed; in these, he constantly keeps up the 
distinction between the Canonical and Ecclesiastical 
books ; and he explicitly declares, that u Ecclesiasticus, 
Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apoc- 
ryphal, — dubious, — not Canonical, — not received by 
the church for proving any matters of faith, but for 
information of manners." 

Thomas Aquinas, also, the most famous of the 
schoolmen, makes the same distinction between these 
classes of books. He maintains, that the book of Wis- 
dom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and as- 
cribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, 
he calls a fable ; and he shows clearly enough, that 
he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of Canonical 
authority. 

In the fourteenth century, no man acquired so 
extensive a reputation, for his commentaries on the 
Bible, as Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew. In 
his Preface to the book of Tobit, he says, " That 
having commented on all the Canonical books, from 
the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, 
his intention now was, to write on those books w 7 hich 
are not Canonical" Here he enumerates, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees; and 
then adds, " The Canonical books are not only before 
these in time, but in dignity and authority."— And 



64 

again, "These are not in the Canon, but received by 
the church to be read for instruction in manners, not 
to be used for deciding controversies respecting the 
faith; whereas, the others are of such authority, that 
whatever they contain is to be held as undoubted 
truth." 

The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, 
accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in his 
Dialogues, acknowledges, "That, that honor is due 
only to the divine writers of Scripture, that we 
should esteem them free from all error." Moreover, 
in his Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of 
Jerome and Gregory, "That neither Judith, nor Tobit, 
nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, 
are to be received into the same place of honor, as the 
inspired books ; for," says he, " the church doth 
not number them among the Canonical Scriptures." 

In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, some- 
times called the angelical doctor ', on account of his 
excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the 
Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from 
Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah. 

Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his 
conversion to Christianity, on account of his superior 
knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of 
Burgos, wrote Notes on the Bible, in which he retains 
the same distinction of books, which has been so often 
mentioned. 

The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found 
an authority for these disputed books, in the council 
of Florence; from the Acts of which, they produce 
a decree, in which the six disputed books are named, 
and expressly said to be written by the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost, 



65 

If this Canon were genuine, the authority of a 
council sitting in such circumstances; as attended the 
meeting of this, would have very little weight: but 
Dr. Cosins has shown, that in the large copies of the 
acts of this council, no such decree can be found: and 
that it has been foisted into the abridgment, by some 
impostor, who omitted something else, to make room 
for it ; and thus preserved the number of Canons 
unchanged, while the substance of them was altered. 

Alphoxso Tostatus. bishop of Avila. who. on 
account of his extraordinary learning, was called the 
wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive 
testimony on this subject. This learned man declares^ 
"That these controverted books were not Canonical, 
and that the church condemned no man for disobedi- 
ence, who did not receive them as the other Scriptures; 
because they were of uncertain origin; and it is not 
known that they were written by inspiration 9 And 
again, '-'' Because the church is uncertain, whether 
heretics have not added to them."' This opinion he 
repeats in several parts of his works. 

Cardinal Ximexes. the celebrated ediror of the 
Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that work, 
admonishes the reader, that Judith. Tobit. Wisdom 
Ecclesiasticus. Maccabees, with the additions to Esther 
and Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not 
Canonical Scripture. 

John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, ad- 
hered firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the other 
Fathers, on the subject of the Canon. 

Faber Stapulensis, a famous doctor of Paris, 
acknowledges that these books are not in the Canon. 

Ludovicus Vives, one of the most learned men of 
his age, in his commentaries on Augutine's City or 

f2 



66 

GOD, rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras, and 
also the History of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal. 
He speaks in such a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesi- 
asticus as to show, that he did not esteem them 
Canonical; for, he makes Philo to be the author of 
the former, and the Son of Sirsch of the latter, who 
lived in the time of Ptolemy, about an hundred years 
after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, 
he doubts, whether Josephus was the author, or not ; 
by which he sufficiently shows, that he did not believe 
that they were written by inspiration. 

But there was no man in this age who obtained so 
high a reputation for learning and critical skill, as 
Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostles Creed 
and the Decalogue, he discusses this question respect- 
ing the Canonical books; and after enumerating the 
usual books of the Old Testament, he says, "The 
ancient Fathers admitted no more;" but of the other 
books, afterwards received into ecclesiastical use, 
(naming the whole which we esteem apocryphal,) 
"It is uncertain what authority should be allowed to 
them ; but the Canonical Scriptures are such, as 
without controversy, are believed to have been written 
by the inspiration of God." And in his Scholia on 
Jerome's Preface to Daniel, he expresses his wonder, 
that such stories as Bel and the Dragon, should be 
publicly read in the churches. In his address to stu- 
dents of the Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider 
well, "That the church never intended to give the 
same authority to Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom, which 
is given to the Five Books of Moses, or the Four 
Evangelists."' 

The last testimony which we shall adduce, to show, 
that these books were not universally, nor commonly 



67 

received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, 
is that of Cardinal Cajetax, the oracle of the church 
of Rome. , In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives 
us this, as the rule of the church— " That those books 
which were Canonical with Jerome, should be so with 
us ; and that those which were not received as Canoni- 
cal by him, should be considered as excluded by us." 
And he says, "The Church is much indebted to this 
Father for distinguishing between the books which 
are Canonical, and those which are not, for thus he 
has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, ivho 
otherwise might say, that we had framed a new 
Canon for ourselves." For this reason, he would write 
no commentaries on these apocryphal books: for, says 
he, Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the addi- 
tions to Esther, are all excluded from the Canon, as 
insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they 
may be read for the edifying of the people." 

From the copious citations of testimonies which we 
have given, it is evident, that the books in dispute, are 
apocryphal, and have no right to a place in the Canon; 
and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely, in de- 
creeing, with an anathema annexed, that they should 
be received as divine. Surely, no council can make 
that an inspired book, which was not written by 
inspiration. Certainly, these books did not belong to 
the Canon while the apostles lived, for they were 
unknown both to Jews and Christians. Sixtus 
Sinensis, a distinguished Romanist, acknowledges, 
that it was long after the time of the apostles, that 
these writings came to the knowledge of the whole 
Christian church. But while this is conceded, it does 
not terminate the controversy, for among the many 
extraordinary claims of the Romish church, one of the 



68 

most extraordinary is, the authority to add to the 
Canon of Holy Scripture. It has been made suffi- 
ciently manifest, that these apocryphal book^ were not 
included in the Canon, during the first three centuries; 
and can it be doubted whether the Canon was fully 
constituted before the fourth century? To suppose, 
that the Pope, or a Council, can make what books 
they please Canonical, is too absurd to deserve a 
moment's consideration. If, upon this principle, they 
could render Tobit and Judith Canonical, upon the 
same, they might introduce Herodotus, Livy, or even 
the Koran itself. 



SECTION Y. 

INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT 

CANONICAL THE WRITERS NOT PROPHETS, AND 

BO NOT CLAIM TO BE INSPIRED. 

I come now to the fifth argument to disprove the 
Canonical authority of these books, which is derived 
from internal evidence. Books which contain mani- 
fest falsehoods ; or which abound in silly and ridicu- 
lous stories ; or contradict the plain and uniform 
doctrine of acknowledged Scripture, cannot be Canoni- 
cal. Now I will endeavor to show, that the books 
in dispute, are all, or most of them, condemned by this 
rule. 

In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to 
tell a palpable falsehood — " I am Azarias, the son of 
Ananias the great, and of thy brethern "* By which 
Tobit was completely deceived, for he says, " Thou art 
of an honest and good stock." Now in chapter xii, 
this same angel declares, " I am Raphael, one of the 
seven Holy Angels, which present the prayers of 
the saints, and go in and out before the glory of the 
Holy One." 

Judith is represented as speaking scarcely any thing 
but falsehood to Holofornes ; but what is most incon- 
sistent with the character of piety given her, is, that 

* Tobit, v. \%. 



70 

she is made to pray to the God of Truth, in the 
following words, " Smite by the deceit of my lips, the 
servant with the prince, and the prince with the 
servant :" who does not perceive, at once, the impiety 
of this prayer? It is a petition, that He who holds in 
utter detestation all falsehood, should give efficacy to 
premeditated deceit. 

This woman, so celebrated for her piety, is also 
made to 'speak with commendation of the conduct of 
Simeon, in the cruel slaughter of the Shechemites ; an 
act, against which God, in the Scriptures, has expressed 
his high displeasure. In the second book of Maccabees, 
Razis, an Elder of Jerusalem, is spoken of with high 
commendation, for destroying his own life, rather than 
fell into the hands of his enemies; but, certainly, 
suicide is not, in any case, agreeable to the word of 
God. 

The author of the book of Wisdom, speaks in the 
name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to 
build a temple in the holy mountain ; whereas it has 
been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely ascribed 
to Solomon. 

In the book of Tobit, we have this story : " And as 
they went on their journey they came to the river 
Tigris, and they lodged there; and when the young 
man went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of 
the river, and would have drowned him. Then the 
angel said unto him, take the fish. And the young 
man laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To 
whom the angel said, open the fish, and take the 
heart, and the liver, and the gall, and put them up 
safely. So the young man did as the angel commanded 
him, and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat 
it. Then the young man said unto the angel, brother 



71 

Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the 
gall of the fish? And he said unto him, touching" the 
heart and the liver, if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble 
any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man 
or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed, 
As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath 
whiteness in his eyes ; he shall be healed."* If this 
story does not savour of the fabulous, then it would be 
difficult to find any thing that did. 

In the book of Baruch, t there are also several things 
which do not appear to be true. Baruch is said to 
have read this book, in the fifth year after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, in the ears of Jeremiah, t the king, 
and all the people dwelling in Babylon, who, upon 
hearing it, collected money and sent it to Jerusalem, to 
the priests. Now Baruch, who is here alleged to have 
read this book in Babylon, is said, in the Canonical 
Scriptures, to have been carried captive into Egypt, 
with Jeremiah, after the murder of Gedaliah. Again, 
he is represented to have read in the ears of Jeconias the 
king, and of ail the people ; but Jeconias is known to 
have been shut up in prison, at this time, and it is no 
how probable that Baruch would have access to him, if 
he even had been in Babylon. The money that was 
sent from Babylon was to enable the priests to offer 
sacrifices to the Lord, but the temple was in ruins, and 
there was no altar. § 

In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we 
read, that u Mordocheus, in the second year of Ar- 

* Tobit, c. vi. f Baruch, i. J Jeremiah, xl. 

& Baruch. i. 10. " And they said behold we have sent you 
money to bu\ youlburnt offerings, and incense, and prepare ye 
manna, and offer upon the altar of tiie Lord our God." 



72 

taxerxes the Great> Was a great man, being a servitor in 
the king's court." And in the same, " That he was 
also one of the captives which Nabuchodonosor carried 
from Jerusalem, with Jaconias, king of Judea." Now> 
between these two periods, there intervened one hun- 
dred and fifty years ; so that, if he was only fifteen 
years of age, when carried away, he must have been 
( a servitor in the king's court, at the age of one hundred 
and seventy -five years ! 

Again, Mordocheus is represented as being "a great 
man in the court, in the second year of Artaxerxes," 
before he detected the conspiracy against the king's 
life. Now, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same, 
or they were not ; if the former, this history clashes 
with the Scriptural account, for there it appears, that 
Mordecai was not, before this time, a courtier, or a 
conspicuous man ; if the latter, then this addition is 
manifestly false, because it ascribes to Artaxerxes, 
what the Scriptures ascribe to another person. 

Moreover, this apocryphal writing places the conspi- 
racy against the king's life before the repudiation of 
Vashti and the marriage of Esther ; but this is repug- 
nant to the Canonical Scriptures. 

It is also asserted, in this book,* that Mordocheus 
received honors and rewards for the detection of the 
conspiracy ; whereas, in the Canonical book of Esther, 
it is declared, that he received no reward. And a 
different reason is assigned, in the two books, for Ha- 
inan's hatred of Mordecai. In the Canonical, it is his 
neglect of showing respect to this proud courtier; in the 
apocryphal, it is the punishment of the two Eunuchs^ 
who had formed the conspiracy. 

* See chap. xvi. 



73 

And finally, Hainan, in this spurious work, is called 
a Macedonian; and it is said, that he meditated the 
design of transferring the Persian kingdom to the 
Macedonians. But this is utterly incredible. The 
kingdom of Macedon mus! have been, at that time, 
most obscure, and probably wholly unknown, at the 
Persian court. But this is not all, he who is here 
called a Macedonian, is in the Canonical book said to 
be an Agagite. The proof of the apocryphal cha- 
racter of this addition to Esther, which has been 
adduced, is, in all reason, sufficient. 

The advocates of these books are greatly perplexed 
to find a place in the history of the Jewish nation, for 
the wonderful deliverance wrought by means of Judith. 
It seems strange that no allusion is made to this event 
m any of the acknowledged books of Scripture ; and 
more unaccountable still, that Josephus, who was so 
much disposed to relate every thing favorable to the 
character of his nation, should never make the least 
mention of it. Some refer this history to the period 
preceding the Babylonish captivity ; while others are 
of opininon, that the events occurred in the time of 
Cambyses, king of Persia. But the name of the high 
priest, here mentioned, does not occur with the names 
of the high priests contained in any of the genealogies. 
From the time of the building of the temple of Solomon, 
to its overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not 
found in the list of high priests, as may be seen by 
consulting the vi. chapter of 1 Chronicles ; nor, in the 
catalogue given by Josephus, in the tenth chapter 
of the tenth book of his Antiquities. That this history 
cannot be placed after the captivity, is manifest, from 
this circumstance, that the temple of Solomon was still 

G 



74 

standing when the transactions which are related in 
this book occurred. 

Another thing in the book of Judith^ which is very 
suspicious, is, that Holofernes is represented as saying, 
u Tell me now, ye Sons of Canaan, who this people 
is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the 
cities that they inhabit." But how can it be reconciled 
with known history, that a prince of Persia should be 
wholly ignorant of the Jewish people ? 

It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the close 
of the book, with any sound principles of chronology. 
Judith is represented as young and beautiful, when 
she slew Holofernes ; but here it is said, u That she 
waxed old in her husband's house, being an hundred 
and five years old. And there was none that made 
the children of Israel any more afraid, in the days of 
Judith ; nor a long time after her death." In whose 
reign, or at what period, we would ask, did the Jews 
enjoy this long season of uninterrupted tranquillity? 

Some writers who are fully convinced that the his- 
tory of Judith cannot be reconciled with authentic 
history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that it contain* 
a beautiful allegory ; — that Bethulia, {the virgin,) 
represents the church of God ; that the assault of 
Nebuchadnezzar signifies, the opposition of the world . 
and its prince ; that the victory obtained by a pious 
woman, is intended to teach, that the church's deli- 
verance, is not effected by human might or power, but 
by the prayers and the piety of the saints, &c. This, 
perhaps, is the most favorable view which we can 
take of this history: but take it as you will, it is clear 
that the book is apocryphal, and has no right to a place 
in the Sacred Canon. 



75 

Between the first and second books of Maccabees, 
there is a palpable contradiction ; for in the first book 
it is said, that u Judas died in the one hundred and 
fifty-second year :" but in the second, a that in the one 
hundred and eighty-eighth year, the people that were 
m Judea, and Judas, and the council, sent greeting 
and health unto Aristobulus." Thus, Judas, is made 
to join in sending a letter, six and thirty years after his 
death ! The contradiction is manifest. In the same 
first chapter, of the second book, theie is a story inserted 
which has very much the air of a fable. "For when 
our Fathers were led into Persia, the priests that were 
then devout, took the fire of the altar privily and hid it 
in a hollow place of a pit without water, where they 
kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. 
Now after many years, when it pleased God, Nehe- 
mias, being sent from the king of Persia, did send of 
the posterity of those priests that had hid it, to the fire: 
but when they told us they found no fire, but thick 
water, then commanded he them to draw T it up and 
bring it, and when the sacrifices was laid on, Nehemias 
commanded the priests to sprinkle the wood and things 
laid thereon, with the water. When this was done 
and the time came that the sun shone, which before 
was hid in the clouds, a great fire was kindled."* But 
the Jews were not carried to Persia but to Babylon, and 
the rest of the story has no foundation, whatever, in 
truth. 

In the second chapter we have another fabulous 
story of Jeremiah's taking the ark and altar, and altar 
of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding them in a 
hollow cave, and closing them up. This place, Jere- 

* 2 Mac. ix. 



76 

rniah declared should be unknown, " Until the time 
that God gathered his people again together, and 
received them into mercy. When the cloud as it 
appeared unto Moses, shall appear again."* 

There is "another contradiction between these books 
of Maccabees, in relation to the death of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. In the first, it is said, that he died at 
Elymais, in Persia, in the hundred and forty-ninth 
year ; but, in the second book, it is related, that after 
entering Persepolis, with a view of overthrowing the 
temple and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants; 
and while on his journey from this place, he was 
seized with a dreadful disease of the bowels, and died 
in the mountains. 

Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the 
seventh chapter of the first book, and in the fourteenth 
and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are totally 
inconsistent. 

In the first book of Maccabees an erroneous account 
is given of the civil government of the Romans, where 
it is said, '* That they committed their government to 
one man every year, who ruled over all their country, 
and that all were obedient to that one." Whereas, it 
is well known, that no such form of government ever 
existed among the Romans. 

6. Finally, it is manifest that these books were not 
inspired, and therefore not Canonical, because they 
were not written by prophets ; but by men who speak 
of their labours in a way wholly incompatible with 
inspiration. 

Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus 
w T as the author of the books of the Maccabees ; but it 



* 1 Mac. vlii. 16. 



77 

has never been supposed by any, that he was an 
inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these 
books are no more Canonical, than the Antiquities, or 
Wars of the Jews, by the same author. 

It has been the constant tradition of Jews and 
Christians, that the spirit of prophecy ceased with 
Malachi, until the appearance of John the Baptist. 
Malachi has, on this account, been called by the Jews, 

" THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS." 

Joseshus, in his book against Apion, after saying 
that it belonged to the prophets alone, to write inspired 
books, adds these words, "From the time of Artaxerxes. 
there were some among us, who wrote books even to 
our own times, but these are not of equal authority with 
the preceding, because the succession of prophets was 
not complete." 

Eusebius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of 
the Jews, denies that he can proceed any lower than 
Zerubbabe!, " Because," says he, "after the return from 
captivity until the advent of our Saviour, there is no 
book which can be esteemed sacred." 

Agustine gives a similar testimony. " After Mala- 
chi the Jews had no prophet, during that whole period, 
which intervened between the return from captivity 
and the advent of cur Saviour." 

Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opinion, 
"From Malachi to John the Baptist," says he, u no 
prophets existed." 

Drusius cites the following words, from the Com- 
piler of Jewish History, "The rest of the discourses of 
Simon and his wars, and the wars of his brother, are 
they not written in the book of Joseph, the Son of 
Gorion, and in the book of the Asmoneans, and in the 
books of the Roman kings." Here the books of the 

g2 



78 

Maccabees are placed between the writings of Josephus 
and the Roman history. 

The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the 
work of Solomon, an inspired man ; but this claim 
furnishes the strongest ground for its condemnation. 
It is capable of the clearest proof from internal evi- 
dence, that this was the production of some person, 
probably a Helenistic Jew, who lived long after the 
Canon of the Old Testament was completed. It con- 
tains manifest allusions to Grecian customs, and is tinc- 
tured with (he Grecian philosophy. The manner in 
which the author praises himself is fulsome, and has 
no parrallel in any inspired writer. This book has 
been ascribed to Fhilo Judeeus m f if this conjecture be 
correct, doubtless it has no just claim to be considered 
a Canonical book. But whoever was the author, his 
endeavoring to pass his composition off for the writing of 
Solomon, is sufficient to decide every question respect- 
ing his inspiration. If Solomon had written this book, 
it would have been found in the Jewish Canon, and 
in the Hebrew language. The writer is also guilty of 
shameful flattery to his own nation, which is entirely 
repugnant to the spirit of all the prophets. He has 
also, without any foundation, added many things to 
the sacred narration, contained in the Canonical his- 
tory; and has mingled with it much which is of the 
nature of poetical embellishment. And, indeed, ths 
whole style of the composition savours too much of 
artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit of God; 
the constant characteristic of whose productions are, 
simplicity and sublimimity. 

Ecclesiasticus, which is superior to all the othes 
apocryphal books, was written by one Jesus the 
son of Sirach. His grandfather, of the same name^. 



79 

k seems, had written a book, which he left to his Sob 
Sirach ; and he delivered it to his son Jesus, who took 
great pains to reduce it into order ; but he no where 
assumes the character of a prophet himself, nor does he 
claim it for the original author, his grandfather. In 
the prologue, he says, " My grandfather Jesus, when 
he had much given himself to the reading of the Law 
and the Prophets, and other books of our fathers, and 
had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also 
himself to write something pertaining to learning and 
wisdom, to the intent that those which are desirous 
to learn, and are addicted to these things, might 
profit much more, in living according to the Law. 
Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favor 
and attention, and to pardon us wherein we may seem 
to come short of some words which we have labored 
to interpret. Farther, some things uttered in Hebrew, 
and translated into another tongue, have not the same 
force in them. — From the eight and thirtieth year, 
coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king, and 
continuing there for some time, I found a book of no 
small learning : therefore I thought it most necessary 
for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret 
it; using great watchfulness, and skill, in that space ; 
to bring the book to an end," &c. Surely there is no 
need of further arguments to prove that this modest 
author did not claim to be inspired. 

The author of the second book of the Maccabees 
professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Gyrene f 
consisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concern- 
ing which work, he says, " Therefore to us that have 
taken upon us this painful labor of abridging, it was 
not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching."— 
Again, "leaving to the author the exact handling of 



80 

every particular, and laboring to follow the rules of an 
abridgment. To stand upon every point, and go over 
things at large, and to be curious in particulars, 
belongeth to the first author of the story ; but to use 
brevity, and avoid much laboring of the work, is to be 
granted to him that maketh an abridgment." Is any 
thing more needed to prove that this writer did not 
profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in 
the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Gyrene, the 
original writer of the history ; but his work is long 
since lost, and we now possess only the abridgment 
which cost the writer so much labor and pains. Thus. 
I think it sufficiently appears, that the authors of these 
disputed books were not prophets ; and that, as far 
as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they 
wrote, they did not lay claim to inspiration, but ex- 
pressed themselves in such a way, as no man under 
the influence of inspiration ever did. 

The Popish writers, to evade the force of the argu- 
ments of their adversaries, pretend, that there was a 
two-fold Canon ; that some of the books of Scripture 
are protocanonical ; and others deuterocanonicaL 
If, by this distinction, they only meant that the word 
Canon was often used by the Fathers, with great lati- 
tude, so as to include all books that were ever read in 
the churches, or that were contained in the volume of 
the Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signifies 
the same, as is often expressed, by calling some books 
Sacred and Canonical, and others, Ecclesiastical* 
But these writers make it manifest, that they mean 
much more than this. They wish to put their deute- 
rocanonical books, on a level with the old Jewish 
Canon; and this distinction is intended to teach, that 
after the first Canon was constituted, other books were, 



81 

from time to time, added : but when these books thus 
annexed to the Canon have been pronounced upon by 
the competent authority, they are to be received as of 
equal authority with the former. When this second 
Canon was constituted, is a matter concerning which 
they are not agreed ; some pretend, that in the time of 
Shammai and Hillel, two famous rabbies, who lived 
before the advent of the Saviour, these books were 
added to the Canon. But why then are they not 
included in the Hebrew Canon? Why does Josephus 
never mention them ? Why are they never quoted 
nor alluded to, in the New Testament? And why 
did all the earlier Fathers omit to cite them ; and why, 
expressly reject them? The difficulties of this theory 
being too prominent, the most of the advocates of the 
apocrypha, suppose, that these books, after having 
remained in doubt before, were received by the supreme 
authority of the Church, in the fourth century. They 
allege, that these books were sanctioned by the council 
of Nice, and by the third council of Carthage, which 
met A. D. 397. But the story of the method pursued 
by the council of Nice, to distinguish between Canoni- 
cal and spurious books, is fabulous and ridiculous, 
There i3 nothing in the Canons of that council relative 
to these books ; and certainly, they cited no authorities 
from them, in confirmation to the doctrines established 
by them. And as to the third council of Carthage, it 
may be asked, what authority had this provincial 
synod to determine any thing for the whole church, 
respecting the Canon. But there is no certainty that 
this council did determine any thing on the subject 
for in the same Canon, there is mention made of Pope 
Bonifase, as living at that time, whereas, he did not 
rise to this dignity, until more than twenty years after- 



82 

wards ; in which time, three other popes occupied the 
see of Rome ; so that this Canon could not have been 
formed by the third council of Carthage. And in some 
copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the seventh 
council of Carthage. However this may be, we may 
be confident, that no council of the fourth century had 
any authority to add to the Canon of Scripture, books 
which were not only not received before, but explicitly 
rejected as apocryphal, by most of the Fathers. Our 
opponents say, that these books were uncertain before? 
but now received confirmation. How could there be 
any uncertainty, in regard to these books, if the church 
was as infallible, in the first, three ages, as in the fourth. 
These books were either Canonical before the fourth 
century, or they were not : if the former, how came it 
to pass that they were not recognized by the apostles ? 
How came they to be overlooked and rejected by the 
primitive Fathers ? But if they were not Canonical 
before, they must have been made Canonical by the 
decree of some council. That is, the church can make 
that an inspired book, which was never given by inspi- 
ration. This absurdity was before-mentioned, but it 
deserves to be repeated, because, however unreasonable 
it may be, it forms the true, and almost the only 
oround, on which the doctrine of the Romish church, 
in regard to these apocryphal books, rests. This is k 
indeed, a part of the Pope's supremacy. Some of their 
best writers, however, deny this doctrine; and whatever 
others may pretend, it is most certain, that the Fathers, 
with one consent, believed that the Canon of Sacred 
Scripture was complete in their time : they never 
dreamed of books not then Canonical, becoming such, 
by any authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of 
adding to the Canon, what did not, from the beginning. 



83 

belong to it. never seems to have entered the mind of 
any person in former times. If this doctrine were 
<x)rrect, we might still have additions made to the 
Canon, and that too, of books which have existed for 
hundreds of years. 

This question may be brought to a speedy issue, 
with all unprejudiced judges. These books were 
either written by divine inspiration for the guidance of 
the church in matters of faith and practice, or they 
were not; if the former, they always had a right to a 
place in the Canon; if the latter, no act of a Pope or 
Council could render that divine, which was not so 
before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, 
than which nothing is more un possible. 

It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek 
Bibles, used by the Fathers, contained these books; 
and, therefore, whenever they give their testimony to 
the Sacred Scriptures, these are included. This argu- 
ment proves too much, for the third book of Esdras, 
and the prayer of Munasses, were contained in these 
volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists- 
The truth, however, is, that these books were not 
originally connected with the Septuagint; they were 
probably introduced into some of the later Greek 
versions, which were made by heretics. These ver- 
sions, particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used 
promiscuously with that of the LXX ; and to this day> 
the common copies contain the version of the book of 
Daniel by Theodotion, instead of that by the LXX. 

By some such means, these apocrypha! books crept 
into the Greek Bible; but the early Fathers were 
careful to distinguish them from the Canonical Scrip- 
tures, as we have already seen. 

That they were read in the churches, is also true ; 



84 

but not as Scripture ; not for the confirmation of doo 
trine ; but for the edification of the common people. 

Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as author- 
ity, but very seldom, and the reason which rendered 
it difficult for them to distinguish accurately between 
Ecclesiastical and Canonical books has already been 
given. These pious men were generally unacquainted 
with Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in 
Greek, and frequently bound up in the same volume 
with the Canonical Scriptures; and observing that they 
contained excellent rules for the direction of life and the 
regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to them, 
and cited passages from them, and permitted them to 
be read in the church, for the instruction and edification 
of the people. 

But the more learned of the Fathers, who ex- 
amined into the authority of the sacred books with 
unceasing diligence, clearly marked the distinction be- 
tween such books as were Canonical, and such as were 
merely human compositions. And some of them, even 
disapproved of the reading of these apocryphal books 
by the people; and some councils warned the churches 
against them. It was with this single view that so 
many catalogues of the Canonical books were prepared, 
and published. 

Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains 
to show that the books called apocrypha, are not 
Canonical, we wish to avoid the opposite extreme of 
regarding them as useless, or injurious. Some of these 
books are important for the historical information 
which they contain ; and, especially, as the facts re- 
corded in them, are, in some instances the fulfilment of 
remarkable prophecies. 

Others of them are replete with sacred, moral, and 



S5 

prudential maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation 
of life and manners ; but even with these, are inter- 
spersed sentiments, which are not perfectly accordant 
with the word of God. hi short, these books are of 
very different value, but in the best of them there is so 
much error and imperfection, as to convince us, that 
they are human productions, and should be used as 
such: not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in 
the attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of 
virtue. Therefore, when we would exclude them 
from a place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them 
as unfit to be read; but we would have them published 
in a separate volume, and studied much more carefully 
than they commonly have been. 

And while we would dissent from the practice of 
reading lessons from these books, as Scriptural Lessons 
are read in the church, we would cordially recommend 
the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Macca- 
bees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and above all Eccle- 
siasticus. 

It is n. dishonor to God, and a disparagement of his 
word, to place other books, in any respect on a level 
with the divine oracles: but it is a privilege to be 
permitted, to have access to the writings of men, emi- 
nent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a 
matter of curious instruction to learn, what were the 
opinions of men, in ages long past, and in countries 
far remote, 



& 



SECTION VI. 

NO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HA& 
BEEN LOST. 

On this subject, there has existed some diversity of 
opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine, as saying. 
u That many of the writings of the prophets had 
perished, which may readily be proved from the his- 
tory in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and 
not only negligent but impious, so that some books 
were lost through carelessness, and others were burned. 
or otherwise destroyed." 

In confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made 
to 1 Kings iv. 32, 33, where it is said of Solomon, 
'•'That he spake three thousand proverbs, and his 
songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of 
treesj from the cedar in Lebanon, even unto the 
hyssop, that springeth out of the wall : he spake also 
of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of 
fishes." All these productions, it is acknowledged, 
have perished. 

Again it is said in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30. " Now 
the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they 
are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the 
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad 
the seer. With all his reign, and his might, and the 
times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all 



87 

the kingdoms of the countries." The book of Jasher, 
also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x. 
13, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, 
until the people had avenged themselves on their 
enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?" 5 
And in 2 Sam. i. 18, H And he bade them teach the 
children of Israel the use of the bow : behold it is 
written in the book of Jasher." 

The book of the Wars of the Lord, is referred 
to, in Num. xxi. 14. 

But we have in the Canon no books under the 
name of Nathan and Gad : nor any book of Jasher ; 
nor of the Wars of the Lord. 

Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the Sacred 
History, to other Chronicles or Annals, for a fuller 
account of the matters spoken of, which Chronicles 
are not now extant. 

And in 2 Chron. ix. 29, it is said, " Now the rest of 
the Acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not 
written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions 
of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam the son of Nebat." 
Now it is well known, that none of these writings of 
the prophets are in the Canon ; at least, none of them 
under their names. 

It is said also in 2 Chron. xii. 15, "Now the acts of 
Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the 
book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, 
concerning genealogies?" Of which works nothing 
remains, under the names of these prophets. 

1. The first observation which I would make on 
this subject, is, that every book referred to, or quoted 
in the sacred writings, is not necessarily an inspired. 



88 

or Canonical book. Because Paul cites passages from 
the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must 
receive their poems, as inspired; 

2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and 
yet be neither inspired nor Canonical. Inspiration 
was not constantly afforded to the prophets, but was 
occasional,, and for particular important purposes. In* 
common matters, and especially in things no how 
connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose,, 
that the prophets and apostles were left to the same 
guidance of reason and common sense, as- other men. 
A man, therefore, inspired to deliver some prophecy, or 
even to write a Canonical book, might write other 
books, with no greater assistance than other good men 
receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some 
Canonical books, it does not follow, that what he wrote 
on Natural History, was alse inspired. The Scrip- 
tures, however, do not say, that his three thousand 
proverbs, and his discourses on Natural History, were 
ever committed to writing. It only says, that he spake 
these things. But supposing that all these discourses: 
were committed to writing, which is not improbable) 
there is not the least reason for believeing that they 
were inspired; any more than Solomon^ private letters 
to his friends, if he ever wrote any. Let it be remem- 
bered, that the prophets and apostles were only inspired 
on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all 
difficulties respecting such works- as these will vanish.. 
How many of the books referred to in the Bible, and 
mentioned above, may have been of this description, \t 
is now impossible to tell ; but probably several of them 
belong to this class. No doubt there were many book& 
of Auoals, much more minute suad. particular in the 



89 

narration of facts, than those which we have. It was 
often enough to refer to these state papers, or public 
documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to 
the facts on account of which the reference was made. 
There is nothing derogatory to the word of God. in 
the supposition that the books of Kings and Chronicles, 
which we have in the Canon, were compiled by the 
inspired prophets from these public records. All that 
is necessary for us, is, that the facts are truly related : 
and this could be as infallibly secured on this hypo- 
thesis, as any other. 

The book of the Wars of the Lord, might for 
ought that appears, have been merely a muster roll of 
the army. The word translated book has so extensive 
a meaning in Hebiew, that it is not even necessary to 
suppose, that it was a writing at all. The book of 
Jasher, (or of Rectitude, if we translate the word,) 
might have been some useful compend taken from 
Scripture, or composed by the wise, for the regulation 
of justice and equity, between man and man. 

Augustine, in his City of God, has distinguished 
accurately on this subject. " I think," says he, " that 
se books which should have authority in religion 
were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men com- 
posed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did 
these by inspiration. And these two classes of books 
are so distinct, that it is only of those written by 
inspiration, that we are to suppose God, through 
them, to be speaking unto us. The one class is 
useful for fulness of knowledge ; the other for autho- 
rity in religion ; in which authority the Canon is 
preserved." 

3. But again, it mav be maintained, without any 
* h2 



m 

prejudice to the completeness of the Canon,, that then 
may have been inspired writings which were not in? 
tended for the instruction of the church in all ages$ 
but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. 
These writings, though inspired, were not Canonical. 
They were temporary in their design, and when that 
was- accomplished; theywere.no longer needed. We 
know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many 
discourses to the people, of which we have not a trace 
on record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who 
wrote nothing that we know of f and several are men- 
tioned, whose names are not even given. The same 
is true of the apostles. Very few of them had any 
concern in writing the Canonical Scriptures,, and yet 
they all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they 
wrote letters, on special occasions, to the churches 
planted by them ; yet these were not designed for the 
perpetual instruction of the universal church. There- 
fore Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad 7 
might have written some things by inspiration, which 
were never intended to form a part of the Sacred 
Volume. It is not asserted, that there certainly existed 
such temporary inspired writings: all that is necessary 
to be maintained, is, that supposing such to have ex- 
isted, which is not improbable, it does not follow 
that the Canon is incomplete, by reason of their loss, 
As this opinion may be startling to some, who have 
not thoroughly considered it, I will call in to its sup- 
port the opinions of some distinguished Theologians., 
'• It has been observed," says Francis Junius, "that 
it is one thing to call a book Sacred, another to say 
that it is Canonical; for every book was sacred which 
was edited by a prophet, or apostle ; but it does not 



91 

follow that every such sacred book is Canonical, and 
was designed for the whole body of the church. For 
example, it is credible that Isaiah the Prophet wrote 
many things, as a prophet, which were truly inspired, 
but those writings only were Canonical, which God 
consecrated to the treasure of the church, and which 
by special direction were added to the public Canon. 
Thus Paul and the other apostles, may have written 
many things, by divine inspiration, which are not now 
extant : but those only are Canonical, which were 
placed in the Sacred Volume, for the use of the uni- 
versal church r which Canon received the approbation 
of the apostles, especially of John,, who so long pre- 
sided over the churches in Asia."* 

The evangelical Witsius. of an age somewhat 
later, delivers his opinion on this point, in the following 
manner: ^No one, I think, can doubt, but that all the 
apostles in the diligent exercise of their office, wrote 
frequent letters to the churches under their care, when 
they could not be present with them ; and to whom 
they might often wish to communicate some instruction 
necessary for them in the circumstances in which they 
were placed. It would seem to me to be injurious to 
the reputation of those faithful and assiduous men, to 
suppose, that not one of them ever wrote any epistle* 
or addressed to a church, any writing, except those few, 
whose epistles are in the Canon. Now, as Peter and 
Paul, and James, and John, were induced to write ta 
the churches, on account of the need in which they 
stood of instruction, why would not the same necessity 
induce the other apostles to write to the churches 

* Explic. la Num. xxi. 



92 

under their care. Nor is there any reason why we 
should complain of the great loss which we have 
sustained, because these precious documents have per- 
ished ; it is rather matter of gratitude, that so many 
have been preserved by the provident benevolence 
of God towards us, and so abundantly sufficient to 
instruct us, in the things pertaining to salvation."* 

Although I have cited this passage from this excel- 
lent and orthodox theologian, in favor of the sentiment 
advanced ; yet I do not feel at libety to go the whole 
length of his opinion, here expressed. There is no 
reason to think, that any of the other apostles com- 
posed such works, as those which constitute the Canon 
of the New Testament. If they had, some of them 
would ''have been preserved , or at least, some memo- 
rial of such writings would have been handed down, 
in those churches to which they were addressed. 
These churches received and preserved the Canonical 
books of those whose writings we have, and why 
should they neglect, or sutler to sink into oblivion, 
similar writings of apostles, from whom they iirst re- 
ceived the Gospel? 

Indeed, after all, this argument is merely hypotheti- 
cal, and would be sufficient to answer the objections 
which might be made, if it could be proved, that some 
inspired writings had perished ; but, in fact, there is 
no proof that any such ever existed. It is, therefore, 
highly probable, that we are in actual possession of all 
the books penned under the plenary inspiration of the' 
Holy Spirit. 

The last remark which 1 shall make in relation to 

* Meletem. De Vita Pauli. 



93 

the books of the Old Testament supposed to be lost. 
is. that it is highly probable that we have several 
of them now in the Canon, under another name. 
The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were, 
probably, not written by one, but by a succession of 
prophets. 

There is reason to believe, that until the Canon of 
the Old Testamnet was closed,. the succession of pro- 
phets was never interrupted. Whatever was necessary 
to be added, by way of explanation, to any book already 
received into the Canon, they were competent to 
annex ; or, whatever annals or histories, it was the 
purpose of God to have transmitted to posterity, they 
would he directed and inspired to prepare. Thus, 
different parts of these books, might have been penned 
by Gad, Nathan, Iddo. Shemaiah, &c. 

That some parts of these histories were prepared by 
prophets, we have clear proof, in one instance ; for, 
Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy several chapters,, 
which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, 
there can be no doubt, were originally written by 
himself." 

The Jewish doctors are of opinion, that the book of 
Jasher, is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the 
whole Law. 

The book of the Wars of the Lord, has by many 
been supposed to be no other than the book of Num- 
bers. 

Thus, I think, it sufficiently appears, from an ex- 
amination of particulars, that there exists no evidence,. 

* See 2 Kings xviii. xix. xx., compared with Tsaiah xxxvu 
xx.xvii. xxxviii. 



94 

that any Canonical book of the Old Testament has 
been lost. To which we may add, that there are 
many general considerations of great weight, which go 
to prove, that no part of the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
tament have been lost. 

The first is, that God by his providence would pre- 
serve from destruction books given by inspiration, and 
intended for the perpetual instruction of his church. It 
is reasonable to think, that he would not suffer his 
gracious purpose to be frustrated : and this argument, 
a priori, is greatly strengthened by the fact, that a 
remarkable providential care has been exercised in the 
preservation of the Sacred Scriptures. It is truly won- 
derful, that so many books should have been preserved 
un mutilated, through hundreds and thousands of years ; 
and during vicissitudes so great; and especially when 
powerful tyrants were so desirous of annihilating the 
religion of the Jews, and nsed their utmost exertions 
to destroy their sacred books. 

Another consideration of great weight is, the reli- 
gious, and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews, 
as far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures, have watched over their preservation. There 
can, I think, be little doubt, that they exercised the 
same vigilance during that period of their history of 
which we have no monuments. 

The translation of these books into Greek, is suffi- 
cient to show, that the same books existed nearly two 
hundred years before the advent of Christ. 

And above all, the unqualified testimony to the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his 
apostles, ought to satisfy us, that we have lost none of 
the inspired books of the Canon, 



95 

The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted 
is infallible authority, by them, as we have before 
shown. These oracles were committed to the Jews as 
i sacred deposit, and they are never charged with un- 
faithfulness, in this trust. The Scriptures are declared 
lo have been written for our learning: and no intima- 
Lion is given that they had ever been mutilated, or in 
my degree corrupted. 



.* 



SECTION VII 

THE ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS, WITHOUT FOUNDA- 
DAT ION. 

However the Jews may seem to agree with us ; 
in regard to the ®|F»i#i of the Old Testament, this 
concord relates onl^c^jL written law ; for, they obsti- 
nately persist in maintaining, that besides the law 
which w r as engraven on tables of stone, and the other 
precepts, and ordinances, which were communicated 
to Moses, and were ordered to be written, God gave 
unto him another Law, explanatory of the first, 
which he was commanded not to commit to writing, 
but to deliver down by oral tradition. 

The account which the Jewish doctors give of the 
first communication and subsequent delivery of this 
law, is found in the Talmud. It is there stated, that 
during the whole clay, while Moses continued on the 
mount, he was learning the written law, but at night 
he was occupied in receiving the oral law. 

When Moses descended from the mount, they say, 
that he first called Aaron into his tent, and communi- 
cated to him all that he had learned of this oral law, 
then he placed him on his right hand. Next he called 
in Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and repeated 
the whole to them ; on which they also took their 
seats, the one on his right hand, the other on his left. 



9? 

After ibis the seventy elders entered, and received the 
same instruction as Aaron and his sons. And finally, 
the same communication was made to the whole 
multitude of people. Then Moses arose and departed, 
and Aaron, who had now heard the whole four times, 
repeated what he had learned, and also withdrew. In 
the same manner, Eliezer and Ithamar, each in turn, 
went over the same ground, and departed. And 
finally, the seventy elders repeated the whole to the 
people ; every one of whom delivered what he had 
heard to his neighbor. Thus, according to Maimo- 
nides, was the oral law first given. 

And the Jewish account of its transmission to 
posterity is no less particular. They pretend, that 
Moses, when forty years had elapsed from the time of 
the Israelites leaving Egypt, called all the people, and 
telling them that his end drew near, requested that if 
any of them had forgotten aught of what he had 
delivered to them, they should repair to him, and he 
would repeat to them anew what they might have 
forgotten. And they tell us, that from the first day of 
the eleventh month, to the sixth day of the twelfth, he 
was occupied in nothing else than repeating and 
explaining the law to the people. 

But, in a special manner, he committed this law to 
Joshua, by whom it was communicated, shortly before 
his death, to Phineas, the son of Eliezer ; by Phineas, 
to Eli ; by Eli, to Samuel ; by Samuel, to David and 
Ahijah; by Ahijah, to Elijah; by Elijah, to Elisha; 
by Elisha, to Jehoiada ; by Jehoiada, to Zechariah, by 
Zechariah to Hosea; by Hosea, to Amos; by Amos, to 
Isaiah ; by Isaiah, to Micah ; by Micah, to Joel ; by Joel, 
to Nahum ; by Nahum, to Habbakuk ; by Habbakuk, 
to Zephaniah ; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah ; by Jere- 



98 

miah, to Baruch ; by Barucb, to Ezra, the president 
of the great synagogue. By Ezra, this law was 
delivered to the high priest Jaddua ; by Jaddua, to 
Antigonus ; by Antigonus, to Joseph son of John and 
Joseph son of Jehezer ; by these to Aristobulus, and 
Joshua the son of Perechiah ; by them to Judah son 
of Tibceus, and Simeon son of Satah. Thence to 
Shemaiah — to Hillel — to Simeon his son ; supposed 
to have been the same who took our Saviour in his 
arms, in the temple, when brought thither to be pre- 
sented by his parents. From Simeon, it passed to 
Gamaliel, the preceptor, as it is supposed, of Paul. 
Then to Simeon his son; and finally, to the son of 
Simeon, Judah Hakkadosh, by whom it was com- 
mitted to writing. 

But, although, the above list brings down an 
unbroken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy, 
yet to render the tradition still more certain, the Jewish 
doctors inform us, that this oral law was also com- 
mitted, in a special manner, to the high priests ; and 
handed down, through their line, until it was com- 
mitted to writing. 

Judah Hakkadosh was the president of the Academy 
at Tiberias, and was held in great reputation for his 
sanctity, from which circumstance he received his 
surname, Hakkadosh, the Holy. The temple being 
now r desolate, and the nation scattered abroad, it was 
feared, lest the traditionary law might be lost; therefore, 
it was resolved to preserve it by committing it to writing. 
Judah the Holy, who lived about the middle of the 
second century, undertook this work, and digested all the 
traditions he could collect in six books, each consisting 
of several tracts. The whole number is sixty-three. 
But these tracts are again subdivided into numerous 



99 

chapters. This is the famous Mishna of the Jews. 
When finished, it was received by the nation with the 
highest respect and confidence ; and their doctors 
began, forthwith, to compose commentaries on every 
part of it. These comments are called the Gemara, 
or the completion ; and the Mishna and Gemara, 
together, form the Talmud. But as this work of 
commenting on the text of the Mishna was pursued, 
not only in Judea, but in Babylonia, where a large 
number of Jews resided, hence it came to pass, that 
two Talmuds were formed : the one called the 
Jerusalem Talmud, the other, the Babylonish 
Talmud. In both these, the Mishna, committed to 
writing by Judah, is the text ; but the commentaries 
are widely different. The former was completed 
before the close of the third century of the Christian 
era; the latter was not completed until towards the 
close of the fifth century. The Babylonish Talmud 
is much the largest of the two; for while that of 
Jerusalem has been printed in one folio volume, this 
fills twelve folios. This last is also held in much 
higher esteem by the Jews, than the other ; and, 
indeed, it comprehends all the learning and religion of 
that people, since they have been cast off for their 
unbelief and rejection of the true Messiah. 

Maimonides has given an excellent digest of all 
the laws and institutions enjoined in this great work. 

The Jews place fully as much faith in the Talmud, 
as they do in the Bible. Indeed, it is held in much 
greater esteem, and the reading of it is much more 
encouraged. It is a saying of one of their most 
esteemed Rabbies, "That the oral law is the founda- 
tion of the written : nor can the written law be ex- 
pounded, but by the oral," Agreeably to this, in their 



100 

confession, called, the Golden Altar, it is said, "It is 
impossible for us to stand upon the foundation of our 
holy law, which is the written law, unless it be by 
the oral law, which is the exposition thereof." In the 
Talmud it is written, "That to give attention to the 
study of the Bible is some virtue; but he who pays- 
attention to the study of the Mishna, possesses a 
virtue which shall receive a reward; and he who 
occupies himself in reading the Gemara, has a virtue, 
than which there is none more excellent." Nay, they 
go to the impious length of saying, "That he who is 
employed in the study of the Bible and nothing else,, 
does but waste his time." They maintain, that if the 
declarations of this oral law be ever so inconsistent 
with reason and common sense, they must be received 
with implicit faith — "You must not depart from them," 
says Rabbi SoL Jarchi, "if they should assert that 
your right hand is your left : or your left your right," 
And in the Talmud it is taught, " That, to sin against 
the words of the scribes, is far more grevious than to 
sin against the words of the Law." " My son, attend 
rather to the words of the scribes, than to the words 
of the Law." " The text of the Bible is like water, 
but the Mishna is like wine ;" with many other simi- 
lar comparisons. 

Without the oral law* they assert, that the written 
law remains in perfect darkness ; for, say they, "There 
are many things in Scripture, which are contradictory, 
and which can in no way be reconciled, but by the 
oral law, which Moses received in Mount Sinai." In 
conformity with these sentiments, is the conduct of the 
Jews, until this day. Their learned men spend almost 
all their time in poring over the Talmud ; and he, 
among them, who knows most of the contents of this 



101 

monstrous farrago of lies and nonsense, is esteemed the 
most learned man. In consequence of their implicit 
faith in this oral law, it becomes almost useless to 
reason with the Jews out of the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament. It is a matter of real importance, there- 
fore, to show, that this whole fabric rests on a sandy 
foundation ; and to demonstrate that there is no evi- 
dence whatsoever that any such law was ever given 
to Moses, on Sinai. To this subject, therefore, I would 
now solicit the attention of the reader. 

Here, then, let it be observed, that we have no con- 
troversy with the Jews concerning the written law. 
Moral, Ceremonial, or Political: nor do we deny that 
Moses received from God, on Mount Sinai, some 
explication of the writtten law. But what we maintain 
is* that this exposition did not form a second distinct 
law ; that it was not the same as the oral law of the 
Jews, contained in the Talmud: that it was not 
received by Moses in a distinct form from the written 
law. and attended with a prohibition to commit it to 
writing. 

In support of these positions, we solicit the attention 
of the impartial reader to the following arguments : 

1. There is not the slightest mention of any such 
law in all the sacred records ; neither of its original 
communication to Moses, nor of its transmission to 
posterity, in the way pretended by the Jews. Now. 
we ask, is it probable, that if such a law had been 
given, there should never have been any hint of the 
matter, nor the least reference to it, in the whole 
Bible? Certainly, this total silence of Scripture is 
very little favorable to the doctrine of an oral law. 
Maimonides, does indeed, pretend to find a reference 
to it in Exodus xxix. 12. (i I will give you, saith the 

i2 



102 

Lord, a law, and commandment f by the first of these 
he understands, the written law, and by the last, the 
oral. But if he had only attended to the words next 
ensuing, he would never had adduced this text in 
confirmation of an oral law; "which I have written 
that thou mayest teach them. 7 ' And we know that it 
is very common to express the written law by both 
these terms, as well as by several others of the same 
import. Now, if no record exists of such a law having 
been given to Moses, how can we, at this late period r 
be satisfied of the fact? If it was never heard of for 
more than two thousand years afterwards, what evi- 
dence is there that it ever existed. 

2. Again, we know that in the time of king Jtisiah, 
the written law r , which had been lost, was found again, 
How great was the consternation of the pious king 
and bis court, on this occasion ! How memorable the 
history of this fact f But what became of the oral 
law during this period ? Is it reasonable to think, that 
this would remain uninjured through successive ages of 
idolatry, when the written law was so entirely forgotten? 
If they had lost the knowledge of what was in their 
written law, would they be likely to retain that which 
was oral? If the written law was lost, would the tra- 
ditionary law be preserved? And if this was at any 
time lost, how could it be recovered ? Not from the 
written law, for this does not contain it ; not from the 
memory of man, for the supposition is, that it was 
thence obliterated. If, then, this law, by any chance, 
was onee lost, it is manifest that, it could never be 
recovered, but by divine revelation. And when we 
survey the history of the Jews, is it conceivable, that 
such a body of law, as that contained in the Talmud, 
immensely larger than the written law, could have 



103 

been preserved entire, through so many generations, 
merely by oral communication? The Jews, indeed, 
amuse us with a fable on this subject. They tell us 
that while the Israelites mourned on account of the 
death of Moses, they forgot three thousand of these 
traditions, which were recovered by the ingenuity of 
Othniel the son of Kenaz. This is ridiculous enough* 
What a heap of traditions must that have been, from 
which three thousand could be lost at once. And 
how profound the genius of Othniel, which was able 
to bring - to light such a multitude of precepts, after 
they had been completely forgotten ! But the proof of 
this fact is more ludicrous still. It is derived from 
Joshua xv. 16, 17. ' : And Caleb said, he that smiteth 
Kirjath-Sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give 
Achsah my daughter to wife. And Othniel the sou 
of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it : and he gave 
him Achsah his daughter to w T ife.* ? 

The unlearned reader should be informed that Kir- 
jath-Sepher, means, the city of the book. 

But who retained the oral law safely preserved in 
his memory during the long reign of Manasseh, and 
during the reign of Anion, and of Josiah? Where 
was that law, during the seventy years captivity, in 
Babylon? Have we not a word to inform us of the 
fate of this law in all the histories of the times ? What ? 
is there not a hint concerning the observation of a 
deposit so precious as this law is pretergu to be ? We 
must say again, that this continued siflSfce of Scripture, 
through a period of so many hundred years, speaks 
little in favor of the unwritten law. 

3. The Jews again inform us, that this law was 
prohibited to be written; but whence do they derive 
the proof of the assertion ? Let the evidence, if there 



104 

be any, be produced. Must we have recourse to the 
oral law itself, for testimony? Be it so. But why 
then is it now written, and has been, for more than 
fifteen hundred years? In the Talmud, it is said, 
" The words of the written law, it is not lawful for you 
to commit to oral tradition ; nor the words of the oral 
law to writing." And Sol. Jarhic says, "Neither is 
it lawful to write the oral law." Now we say, there 
was a law containing such a prohibition, or there was 
not. If the former, then the Talmudists have trans- 
gressed a positive precept of this law, in committing 
it to writing ; if the latter, then their Talmud and 
their rabbies speak falsely. Let them choose, in this 
dilemma. 

4. But it cau be proved, that whatever laws Moses 
received from God, the same he was commanded to 
write. It is said, "And Moses came and told the peo- 
ple all the words of the Lord. — And Moses wrote all 
the words of the Lord."* 

And again, it is said, " And the Lord said to Moses, 
write these words, for according to these words have 1 
made a covenant with you and with Israel."t And it 
is worthy of particular observation, that whenever the 
people are called upon to obey the law of the Lord, no 
mention is made of any other than the written law. 
Thus Moses, when his end approached, made a speech 
unto the peopl^after which, it is added, "And Moses 
wrote this law^and delivered it unto the priests the 
sons of Levi, wmch bare the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses 
commanded them saying, At the end of every seven 
years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the 

* Exod. xxiv. 3,4 \ xxxiv. 27, 28. 



105 

feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear 
before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall 
choose, thou shalt read it before all Israel in their 
hearing."* 

Here, observe, there is no mention of any other but 
the written law. There is no direction to repeat the 
oral law, at this time of leisure ; but surely it was 
more necessary to command the people to do this, if 
there had been such a law, than to hear the written 
law which they might read from time to time. 

In the time of Ahaz, the sacred historian informs 
us, "That the Lord testified against Israel, and against 
Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, 
turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my command- 
ments and statutes, according to all the law which I 
commanded your fathers, and which I sent unto you 
by my servants the prophets. r t 

Now it is very manifest, that the law which they 
are reproved for breaking, was the written law ; for in 
the same chapter we have the following exhortation : 
" And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, 
and the commandments which he wrote for you, ye 
shall observe to do for evermore.*' 

The prophets continually refer the people " to the 
law, and to the testimony," and declare, u if they 
speak not according to this word, it is because there is 
no light in them." 

"When Jehoshaphat set about reforming and instruct- 
ing the people, and set on foot an important mission, 
consisting of princes and Levites, to teach them, they 
confined themselves to what was written in the Scrip- 
tures, -'And they taught in Judah, and had the book 

* Peut. xxxi. 9, 24. f 2 Kings xvii. 13, 37. 



106 

of the law of the Lord with them, and went about 
through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people. 5 '* 

So also Ezra, when he instructed the people who 
had returned from Babylon, made use of no other than 
the written law; "And Ezra the priest brought the 
law before the congregation, both of men and women, 
and all that could hear with understanding. — And he 
read therein before the street, that was before the water 
gate, from the morning until mid-day, before the men 
and the women, and those that could understand : and 
the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book 
of the law. — And Ezra stood upon a pulpit of wood, 
which they had made for the purpose ; — And Ezra 
opened the book in sight of all the people, and when he 
opened it, all the people stood up. — And the priests 
and the Levites caused the people to understand the 
law : — And they read in the book, in the law of God 
distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people 
to understand the reading, "t 

5. Besides, the written law is pronounced to be per- 
fect, so that nothing need, or could be added to it, 
therefore the oral law was superfluous. "The law of 
the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."} "Ye shall 
not add unto the word which I command you, neither 
shall you diminish aught from it, that ye may keep 
the commandments of the Lord your God which I 
command you."§ 

It is not a v^lid objection which they bring against 
this argument, that Christians add the gospel to the 
law ; for this is not, properly speaking, a new law. 
The gospel is a promise of grace and salvation. The 

* 2 ChroD. xvii. 9. f Neh. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. 

I Psalm xix. 8. * Deut. iv. 1,2. 



107 

precepts of the law are, indeed, specially employed in 
the gospel, to a purpose for which they were not 
originally intended ; but the gospel, in whatever light 
it may be viewed, is committed to writing, and no part 
of it left to depend on oral tradition. 

6, In the numerous exhortations and injunctions of 
Almighty God, recorded in the Old Testament, there 
is not an instance of any one being commanded to do 
any thing not contained in the written law, which 
proves, that either there was no other law in existence, 
or that obedience to it was not required ; and if obedi- 
ence was not required, then, certainly, there was no 
law.* 

Moreover, many of the Jews themselves concur with 
us, in rejecting the oral law. The chief advocates of 
traditions were the Pharisees, who arose out of the 
schools of Hillel and Shammai, that lived after the 
times of the Maccabees. On this subject, we have the 
testimoney of Jerome, who says, u Shammai and Hillel, 
from whom arose the Scribes and Pharisees, not long 
before the birth of Christ; the first of whom was 
called the dissipator, and the last, profane : because, 
by their traditions, they destroyed the law of God."'t 
But on this point, the Sadducees were opposed to the 
Pharisees, and, according to Josephus, rejected all 
traditions, adhering to the Scriptures alone. With 
them agreed the Samaritans, and Essenes. The 
Karaites, also, received the written word, and rejected 

* It would be tedious to refer to all the texts in which com- 
mands and exhortations are given, but the reader may consult 
the following: — Deut. x. 12, 13. xi. 32. xxviii. 1. xxx. 20. 
xxix. 9, 20. xxxi. 45, 46. Josh. i. 7. xxiii. 6. 2 Kings xiv. 6. 
2 Chron. xxv.4. xxx. 16. 

f In Jesa. viii. 



108 

iali traditions ; although in other respects, they did tiot 
agree with the Sadducees. And in consequence of 
this, they are hated and reviled by the other Jews, so 
that it is not without great difficulty, that they will 
receive a Karaite into one of their synagogues. Of 
this sect, there are still some remaining in Poland, 
Russia, Turkey, and Africa. 

It now remains to mention the arguments by which 
the Jews attempt to establish their oral law. These 
shall be taken from Manasseh ben Israel,* one of 
their most learned and liberal men. He argues from 
the necessity of on oral law, to explain many parts of 
the written law. To confirm this opinion, he adduces 
several examples, as Exodus xii. 2. " This month 
shall be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be 
the first month of the year." On this text he remarks, 
16 That the name of the month is not mentioned. It 
is not said, whether the months were lunar or solar, 
both of which were in ancient use ; and yet without 
knowing this, the precept could not be observed. The 
same difficulty occurs, in regard to the other annual 
feasts." 

" Again, in Exodw xx. 10., all work is prohibited on 
the Sabbath, but circumcision is commanded to be per- 
formed on the eighth day ; and it is no where declared, 
whether this rite should be deferred, when the eighth 
day occurred on the Sabbath. The same difficulty 
exists in regard to the slaying of the paschal lamb, 
which was confined by the law to the fourteenth day 
of the month, and we are no where informed what 
was to be done when this was the Sabbath." " In 
Deut. xxiv. we have many laws relating to marriage, 

* Concil. In Exod. 



109 

but we are no where informed what was constituted 
a legal marriage." " In the Feast of the Tabernacles, 
beautiful branches of trees are directed to be used, but 
the species of tree is not mentioned, And in the 
Feast of Weeks, it is commanded, ' That on the fifti- 
eth day, the wave-sheaf should be offered from their 
habitations;' but where it should be offered, is not 
said. And, finally, among prohibited marriages, the 
wife of an uncle is never mentioned." 

In these, and many other instances, the learned Jew 
observes, that the law could only be understood by 
such oral tradition as he supposes accompanied the 
written law. 

Now, in answer to these things, we observe first, 
in the general, that however many difficulties may be 
started respecting the precise meaning of many parts 
of the law, these can never prove the existence of an 
oral law. The decision on these points might have 
been left to the discretion of the worshippers, or to the 
common sense of the people. Besides, many things 
may appear obscure to us, which were not so to the 
ancient Israelites; so that they might have needed no 
oral law to explain them. 

Again, it is one thing to expound a law, and ano- 
ther to add something to it ; but the oral law for 
which they plead, is not a mere exposition, but an 
additional law. 

It is one thing to avail ourselves of traditions to 
interpret a law, and another to receive them as divine 
and absolutely necessary. We do not deny that many 
things may be performed according to ancient custom. 
or the traditions of preceding ages, in things indifferent; 
but we do deny that these can be considered as 
divine or necessary. 



110 

But particularly, we answer, that the alleged diffi- 
culty about the name of the month has no existance. 
for it can be very well ascertained from the circum- 
stances of the case ; and in Exod. xiii. the month is 
named. The civil year of the Jews began with the 
month Tisri, but the Ecclesiastical with Abib. There 
is, in fact, no greater difficulty here, than in any other 
case, where the circumstance of time is mentioned, 
There was no need of understanding the method of re- 
ducing solar and lunar years into one another, to decide 
this matter. And if the Talmud be examined on this 
point, where the oral law is supposed to be now con- 
tained, there will be found there, no satisfactory method 
of computing time. And, indeed, the Talmudie doctors 
are so far from being agreed on this subject, that any 
thing else may be found sooner than a law regulating 
this matter in the Talmud. 

And in regard to the unclean birds, why was it ne- 
cessary to have criteria to distinguish them, since a 
catalogue of them is given in the very passage to 
which reference is made. And I would ask, does the 
pretended oral law contain any such criteria, to direct 
in this case? Nothing less. The difficulty about the 
people leaving their place on the Sabbath, and the 
priests leaving the temple, is really too trifling to 
require any serious consideration. And as to w r hat 
should be done when the day of circumcising a child, 
or of killing the passover, happened on the Sabbaths 
it is a point easily decided. These positive institutions 
ought to have been observed, on whatever day they 
occurred. 

The question respecting matrimony, should rather 
provoke a smile, than a serious answer ; for who is 
ignorant what constitutes a lawful marriage? Or who 



Ill 

would suppose that the ceremonies attendant on this 
transaction ought to be prescribed by the law of God; 
or, that another law was requisite for the purpose. 
As well might our learned Jew insist on the necessity 
of an Oral Law, to teach us how we should eat, drink, 
and perform our daily work. 

If the law prescribed beautiful branches of trees to 
be used in the feast of Tabernacles, what need was 
there of an oral law. to teach any thing more. If such 
branches were used, it was of course indifferent, 
whether they were of this or that species. 

Equally futile are the other arguments of the author, 
and need not be answered in detail 

It appears, therefore, that there is no evidence that 
God ever gave any law to Moses, distinct from that 
which is written in the Pentateuch. And there is good 
reason to believe, that the various laws found in the 
Mishna. were never received from God, nor derived 
by tradition from Moses ; but were traditions of the 
Fathers, such as were in use in the time of our Sa- 
viour, who severely reprehends the Scribes and Phari- 
sees, for setting aside, and rendering of no effect, the 
word of God, by their unauthorized traditions. 

The internal evidence is itself sufficient to convince 
us, that the laws of the Talmud are human inventions, 
and not divine institutions ; except, that those circum- 
stances of divine worship which were left to the dis- 
cretion of the people, and which were regulated by 
custom, may be often found preserved in this immense 
work, 



PART II. 



THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



k2 



SECTION L 

METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

After what has been said, in the former part of this 
work, respecting the importance of settling the Canon 
on correct principles, it will be unnecessary to add any 
thing here on that subject, except to say, that this in- 
quiry cannot be less interesting in regard to the New 
Testament, than to the Old. It is a subject which 
calls for our utmost diligence and impartiality. It is 
one which we cannot neglect with a good conscience; 
for the inquiry is nothing less than to ascertain, what 
revelation God has made to us, and where it is to be 
found. 

And, as to the proper method of settling the Canon 
of the New Testament, the same course must be pur- 
sued, as has been done in respect to the Old. We 
must have recourse to authentic history, and endeavor 
to ascertain what books were received as genuine by the 
primitive church, and early Fathers. The contem- 
poraries, and immediate successors of the apostles, are 
the most competent witnesses in this case. If, among 
these, there is found to have been a general agreement, 
as to what books were Canonical, it will go far to 
satisfy us respecting the true Canon ; for it cannot be 
supposed, that they could easily be deceived in a 
matter of this sort. A general consent of the early 



116 

Fathers, and of the primitive church, therefore, fur- 
nishes conclusive evidence on this point, and is that 
species of evidence which is least liable to fallacy or 
abuse. The learned Huet, has, therefore, assumed it 
as a maxim, " That every book is genuine, which was 
esteemed genuine by those who lived nearest to the 
time when it was written, and by the ages following, 
in a continued series."* The reasonableness of this 
rule will appear more evident, when we consider the 
great esteem with which these books were at first 
received ; the constant public reading of them in the 
churches; and the early version of them into other 
languages. 

The high claims of the Romish church, in regard 
to the authority of fixing the Canon, has already been 
disproved, as it relates to the books of the Old Testa- 
ment ; and the same arguments apply with their full 
force to the Canon of the New Testement, and need 
not be repeated. It may not be amiss, however, to 
hear from distinguished writers of that communion, 
what their real opinion is, on this subject. Heuman 
asserts, " That the Sacred Scriptures, without the 
authority of the church, have no more authority than 
iEsop's Fables." And Baillie, " That he would give 
no more credit to St. Matthew, than to Livy, unless 
the church obliged him." To the same purpose speak 
Pighius, Eckius, Bellarmtne, and many others 
of their most distinguished writers. { By the authority 
of the church, they understand a power lodged in the 
church of Rome, to determine what books shall be re- 
ceived as the word of God ; than which it is scarcely 
possible to conceive of any thing more absurdly 

* Demonstratio Evang*. 



117 

In avoiding this extreme, some Protestants have 
verged towards the opposite, and have asserted, that 
the only, or principal evidence of the Canonical au- 
thority of the Sacred Scriptures, is, their internal evi- 
dence. Even some churches went so far as to insert 
this opinion in their public confessions.* 

Now it ought not to be doubted, that the internal 
evidence of the Scriptures is exceedingly strong: and 
that when the mind of the reader is truly illuminated, 
it derives from this source the most unwavering con- 
viction of their truth and divine authority ; but that 
every sincere Christian should be able, in all cases, by 
this internal light, to distinguish between Canonical 
books and such as are not, is surely no very safe or 
reasonable opinion. Suppose, that a thousand books 
of various kinds, including the Canonical were placed 
before any sincere Christian, would he be able, without 
mistake, to select from this mass the twenty-seven 
books of which the New Testament is composed, if he 
had nothing to guide him but the internal evidence? 
Would every such person be able at once to determine, 
whether the book of Ecclesiastes, or of Ecclesiastic 
cits, belonged to the Canon of the Old Testament, by 
internal evidence alone? It is certain, that the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a true 
faith in the word of God ; but to make this the only 
criterion by which to judge of the Canonical authority 
of a book is certainly liable to strong objections. The 
tendency of this doctrine is to enthusiasm, and the 
consequence of acting upon it, would be to unsettle, 
rather than establish, the Canon of Holy Scripture; 
for it would be strange, if some persons, without any 



* See the Confession of the Reformed Gallican Church, 



118 

other guidance than their own spiritual taste, would 
not pretend that other books besides those long received 
were Canonical, or would be disposed to reject some 
part of these. If this evidence w T ere as infallible as 
some would have it to be, then the authenticity of 
every disputed text, as well as the Canonical authority 
of every book, might be ascertained by it. But, it is a 
fact, that some eminently pious men doubted for a while 
respecting the Canonical authority of some genuine 
books of the New Testament. 

And if the internal evidence were the only criterion 
of Canonical authority to which we could resort, there 
would remain no possibility of convincing any person 
of the inspiration of a book, unless he could perceive 
in it the internal evidence of a divine origin. In 
many cases this species of evidence can scarcely be 
said to exist, as when for wise purposes God directs or 
inspires a prophet to record genealogical tables; or 
even in the narration of common events, I do not see 
how it can be determined from internal evidence, that 
the historv is written by inspiration ; for the only cir- 
cumstance in which an inspired narrative differs from 
a faithful human history, is that the one is infallible, 
and the other is not ; but the existence of this infalli- 
bility, or the absence of it, is not apparent from reading 
the books. Both accounts may appear consistent, and 
it is only, or chiefly, by external evidence that we can 
know that one of them is inspired. Who could under- 
take to say, that from internal evidence alone, he could 
determine that the book of Esther, or the Chronicles, 
were written by inspiration? Besides, some books are 
obscure and not easily understood ; now, how could 
any one discern the internal evidence of a book, the 
meaning of which he did not yet understand? 



119 

The evidence arising from a general view of the 
Scriptures, collectively, is most convincing, but is not 
so well adapted to determine whether some one book 3 
consideied separately, was certainly written by divine 
inspiration. 

It is necessary, therefore, to proceed to our destined 
point in a more circuitous way. We must be at the 
pains to examine into the history of the Canon, and, 
as was before said, to ascertain what books were 
esteemed Canonical by all those who had the best 
opportunity of judging of this matter ; and when the 
internal evidence is found corroborating the external, 
the two, combined, may produce a degree of conviction 
which leaves no room to desire any stronger evidence. 

The question to be decided is a matter of fact. It 
is an inquiry respecting the real authors of the books 
of the New Testament, whether they were written by 
the persons whose names they bear, or by others under 
their names. The inspiration of these books, though 
closely allied to this subject, is not now the object of 
inquiry. The proper method of determining a matter 
of fact, evidently is to have recourse to those persons 
who were witnesses of it, or who received their infor- 
mation from others who were witnesses. It is only in 
this way that we know that Homer, Horace, Virgil, 
Livy, and Tully, wrote the books which now go under 
their names. 

The early Christians pursued this method of deter- 
mining what books were Canonical. They searched 
into the records of the church, before their time, and 
from these ascertained what books should be received, 
as belonging to the sacred volume. They appeal to 
that certain and universal tradition, which attested the 
genuineness of these books. Irine^us, Tertul- 



120 

oan, EusEBius, Cyril, and Augustine* have all 
made use of this argument, in establishing the Canon 
of the New Testament. 

The question is often asked, when was the Canon 
of the New Testament constituted ? and by what 
authority? Many persons who write and speak on 
this subject, appear to entertain a wrong impression in 
regard to it ; as if the books of the New Testament 
could not be of authority, until they were sanctioned 
by some Ecclesiastical Council, or by some publicly 
expressed opinion of the Fathers of the church ; and 
as if any portion of their authority depended on their 
being collected into one volume. But the truth is, that 
every one of these books was of authority, as far as 
known, from the moment of its publication ; and its 
right to a place in the Canon, is not derived from the 
sanction of any church or council, but from the fact, 
diat it was written by inspiration. And the appeal to 
testimony is not to prove that any council of bishops, 
or others, gave sanction to the book, but to show that 
it is indeed the genuine work of Matthew, or John, or 
Peter, or Paul, whom we know to have been inspired. 

The books of the New Testament were, therefore, 
of full authority, before they were collected into one 
volume ; and it would have made no difference if they 
had never been included in one volume, but had 
retained tha separate form in which they were first 
published. And it is by no means certain, that these 
books were, at a very early period, bound in one 
volume. As far as we have any testimony on the 
subject, the probability is, that it was more customary 
to include them in two volumes : one of which was 
called the Gospel, and the other, the Apostles. 
Some of the oldest MSS. of the New Testament 



121 

extant, appear to have been put up in this form ; and 
the Fathers often refer to the Scriptures of the New 
Testament^ under these two titles. The question, 
when was the Canon constituted, admits therefore of 
no other proper answer than this, — that as soon as the 
last book of the New Testament was written and 
published, the Canon was completed. But if the 
question relates to the time when these books were 
collected together, and published in a single volume, or 
in two volumes, it admits of no definite answer ; for 
those churches which were situated nearest to the 
place where any particular books were published!, 
would, of course, obtain copies much earlier than 
churches in a remote part of the world. For a con- 
siderable period, the collection of these books, in each 
church, must have been necessarily incomplete; for it 
would take some time to send to the cb ~eh, or people, 
with whom the autographs were deposited, and to 
have fair copies transcribed. This necessary process 
will also account for the fact, that some of the smaller 
books were not received by the churches so early, nor 
so universally, as the larger. The solicitude of the 
churches to possess, immediately, the more extensive 
books of tne New Testament, would, doubtless, induce 
them to make a great exertion to acquire copies ; but, 
probably, the smaller would not be so much spoken of, 
nor would there be so strong a desire to obtain them, 
without delay. Considering how difficult it is now, 
with all our improvements in the typographical art, to 
multiply copies of the Scriptures with sufficient rapi- 
dity, it is truly wonderful, ho v s> many churches as 
were founded during the (irst century, to say nothing 
of individuals, could all be supplied with copies of the 
New Testament, whjn there was no speedier mettod 



122 

of producing them than by writing every letter with 
the pen ! The pen of a ready writer must then, 
indeed, have been of immense value. The idea enter- 
tained by some, especially by Dodwfll, that these 
books lay for a long time locked up in the coffers of 
the churches to which they were addressed, and totally 
unknown to the w 7 orld, is in itself most improbable, 
and is repugnant to all the testimony which exists on 
the subject. Even as early as the time when Peter 
wrote his second Epistle, the writings of Paul were in 
the hands of the churches, and were classed with the 
other Scriptures.* And the citation from these books 
by the earliest Christian writers, living in different 
countries, demonstrates, that from the time of their 
publication, they were sought after with avidity, and 
were widely dispersed. How intense the interest 
which the first Christians felt in the wriiings of the 
apostles can scarcely be conceived by us, who have 
been familiar with these books from our earliest years. 
How solicitous would they be, for example, who had 
never seen Paul, but had heard of his wonderful con- 
version, and extraordinary labors and gifts, to read his 
writings? and probably they who had enjoyed the 
high privilege of hearing this apostle preach, would 
not be less desirous of reading his Episiles! As w r e 
know, from the nature of the case, as well as from 
testimony, that many uncertain accounts of Christ's 
discourses and miracles had obtained circulation, how 
greatly would the primitive Christians rejoice to obtain 
an authentic history from the pen of an apostle, or 
from one who wrote precisely what was dictated by an 
apostle? We need no longer wonder, therefore, that 



* 2 Pet. iii. 14, 15. 



123 

every church should wish to possess a collection of the 
writings of the apostles; and knowing them to be 
the productions of inspired men, they would want no 
further sanction of their authority. All that was 
requisite was, to be certain that the book was indeed 
written by the apostle, whose name it bore. And this 
leads me to observe, that some things in Paul's Epis- 
tles, which seem to common readers to be of no impor- 
tance, were of the utmost consequence. Such as, " I, 
Tertius, who wrote this Epistle, &c. — The salutation 
with mine own hand.— So 1 write in every epistle. — 
Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with 
mine own hand. — The salutation by the hand of me, 
Paul. — The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, 
which is the token in every Epistle."* This apostle 
commonly employed an amanuensis; but that the 
churches to which he wrote might have the assurance 
of the genuineness of his Epistles, from seeing his 
own hand writing, he constantly wrote the Saluta- 
tion him-elf ; so much care was taken to have these 
sacred writings well authenticated, on their first publi- 
cation. And on the same account it was, that he 
and the other apostles were so particular in giving the 
names, and the characters, of those who were the 
bearers of their Epistles. And it seems, that they were 
always committed to the care of men of high estima- 
tion in the church ; and commonly, more than one 
appears to have been intrusted with this important 
commission. 

If it be inquired, what became of the autographs of 



* Roin. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Thes. 
Sii. 17. 



124 

these sacred books, and why they were not preserved ; 
since this would have prevented all uncertainty respect- 
ing the true reading, and would have relieved the 
Biblical critic from a large share of labor? It is suffi- 
cient to answer, that nothing different has occurred, in 
relation to these autographs, from that which has hap- 
pened to all other ancient writings. No man can 
produce the autograph of any book as old as the New 
Testament, unless it. has been preserved in some extra- 
ordinary way, as in the case of the manuscripts of 
Herculaneum; neither could it be supposed, that in the 
midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and persecutions, 
as the Christian church endured, this object could have 
been secured, by any thing short of a miracle. And 
God knew, that by a superintending providence over 
the Sacred Scriptures, they could be transmitted with 
sufficient accuracy, by means of apographs, to the most 
distant generations. Indeed, there is reason to believe, 
that the Christians of early times were so absorbed and 
impressed with the glory of the truths revealed, that they 
gave themselves little concern about the mere vehicle 
by which they were communicated. They had matters 
of such deep interest, and so novel, before their eyes, that 
they had neither time, nor inclination, for the minutiae 
of criticism. It may be. therefore, that they did not 
set so high a value on the possession of the autograph 
of an inspired book as we should, but considered a 
copy, made with scrupulous fidelity, as equally valua- 
ble with the original. And God may have suffered 
these autographs of the sacred writings to perish, lest 
in process of time, they should have become idolized. 
like the brazen serpent ; or lest men should be led 
superstitiously to venerate the mere parchment and 



125 

ink, and form and letters, employed by an apostle* 
Certainly, the history of the church renders such an 
idea far from being improbable. 

But, although little is said about the originals of the 
apostles' writings, we have a testimony in Tertuliian, 
that the Authentic Letters of the apostles might 
be seen by any that would take the pains to go to the 
churches to which they were addressed. Some, in- 
deed, think that Tertuliian does not mean to refer to 
the autographs, but to authentic copies; but why then 
send the inquirer to the churches to which the Epistles 
were addressed? Had not other churches, all over the 
world, authentic copies of these Epistles also? There 
seems to be good reason, therefore, for believing, (hat 
the autographs, or original letters of the apostles, were 
preserved by the churches to which they were ad- 
dressed, in the time of Tertuliian.* 



* See note B. 



l2 



SECTION II. 

CATALOGUES OP THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTA- 
MENT — CANONICAL BOOKS ONLY CITED AS AU- 
THORITY BY THE FATHERS, AN r READ IN THE 
CHPRCHES AS SCRIPTURE. 

Having declared our purpose, to place the settling of 
the Canon of the New Testament on the footing of 
authentic testimony, we will now proceed to adduce 
our authorities, and shall begin with an examination 
of the ancient catalogues of the New Testament. 

The slightest attention to the works of the Fathers 
will convince any one, that the writings of the apostles 
were held, from the beginning, in the highest estima- 
tion; that great pains were taken to distinguish the 
genuine productions of these inspired men, from all 
other hooks; that they were sought out with uncom- 
mon diligence, and read with profound attention and 
veneration, not only in private, but' publicly in the 
churches ; and that they are cited a*id referred to, 
Unviersally, as decisive on every point of doctrine, and 
as authoritative standards for the regulation of faith 
and practice. 

This being the state of the case when the books of 
the New Testament were communicated to the 
Churches, we are enabled, in regard to most of them, 
to produce testimony of the most satisfactory kind, that 
they were admitted into the Canon, and received as 



127 

inspired, bv the universal consent of Christian?, in 
every part of the world. And as to those few books, 
concerning which some persons entertained doubts, it 
can be shown, that as sa*n as their claims were fully 
and impartially investigated, thsy als) were received 
with universal consent. And that other books, how- 
ever excellent as human com;) isitions, were never put 
upon a level with the Canon ca I b >oks of the New 
Testament; that spurious writings, under the names 
of the apostles, were promptly Hiid decisively rejected, 
and that the c, "-dies were repeatedly warned against 
such apocrypha] books. 

To do justice to this subject, will require some detail, 
which may appear dry to the reader, but should be 
interesting to every person who wishes to know as- 
suredly, that what he receives as Sacred Script me, is 
no imposture, but the genuine, authentic productions 
of those inspired men, whom Christ appointed to be 
his witnesses to the world, and to whom was com- 
mitted the sacred deposit of divine truth, intended for 
the instruction and government of the church in all 
future ages. 

In exhibiting the evidence of the Canonical autho- 
rity of these books, we shall first attend to some general 
considerations, which relate to the whole volume, and 
then adduce testimony in favor of each book now in- 
cluded in th • Canon. 

And here, as in the case of the Old Testament, we 
find that at a very early period, catalogues of these 
books were published, by most of the distinguished 
Fathers whose writings have come down to us: the 
game has been done, also, by several Cjuncils, whose 
deci s still extant. 



128 

These catalogues are, for the most part, perfectly 
harmonious. In a few of them, some books now in 
the Canon are omitted, for which omission a satisfac- 
tory reason can commonly be assigned. In the first 
circulation of the Sacred Scriptures, there was great 
need of such lists; as the distant churches and com- 
mon Christians were liable to be imposed on by spuri- 
ous writings, which seem to have abounded in those 
times. It was, therefore, a most important part of 
the instruction given to Christian?, by their spiritual 
guides, to inform them accurately, what books be- 
longed to the Canon. Great pains were taken, also, 
to know the truth on this subject. Pious bishops, for 
this single purpose, travelled inio Judea. and remained 
there for some time, that they might learn, accurately, 
every circumstance relative to the authenticity of these 
writings. 

The first regular catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, which we find on record, is by Origkn, 
whose extensive Biblical knowledge highly qualified 
him to judge correctly in this case. He haxl not only 
read much, but travelled extensively, and resided a 
great part of his life on the confines of Judea, in a 
situation favorable to accurate information from every 
part of the church, where any of these books were 
originally published. Orighn lived, and flourished, 
about one hundred years after the death of the apostle 
John. He was, theref >re, near enough to the time of 
the publication of these books, to obtain the most cer- 
tain information of their authors. Most of the original 
writtings of this great an i learned man have perished, 
but his catalogue of the books of the New Testament 
ha9 been preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical 



129 

History.* It was contained in Origen's Homilies on 
the gospel of Matthew; and was repeated in his Ho- 
milies on the gospel of John. 

In this catalogue, he mentions, The four gospels* 
the Acts of teie Apostles, Fourteen Epistles 
of Paul, Two of Peter, Three of John, and 
The book of Revelation. This enumeration 
includes all the present Canon, except the Epistles of 
James and Jude, but these were omitted by accident, 
not design ; for in other parts of his writings, he 
acknowledges these Epistles as a part of the Canon, 
And while Origen furnishes us with so full a catalogue 
of the books now in the Canon, he inserts no others, 
which proves, that in his time (he Canon was well 
settled among the learned ; and that the distinction 
between inspired writings an:! human compositions 
was as clearly marked, as at any subsequent period. 

In the work entitled, Apostolical Constitu- 
tions, ascribed to Clement of Rome, there is a 
catalogue of the books of the New Testament ; but as 
this work is not genuine, and of an uncertain author 
and age, I will not, make use of it. 

So, also, the catalogue ascribed to the Council op 
Nice, is not genuine, and is connected wilh a story 
which bears every mark of superstitious credulity. f 

* Lib. vi. c. 25, 

f The story is briefly this. The Fathers of the Council of 
Nice put all the books which claimed a place in the Sacred 
Canon under the communion table of t lie church, and then 
prayed that such of them as were inspired might be found up- 
permost, and the apocryphal be!o».v ; whereupon, the event 
occurred agreeably to their wishes: and thus a clear line of 
distinction was made between Canonical books and such as 



130 

This, therefore, shall be likewise omitted. We stand 
in no need of suspicious testimony on this subject. 
Witnesses of the most undoubted veracity, and dis- 
tinguished intelligence, can be found in every successive 
age. 

2. The next catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament to which I will refer, is that of Eusebius, 
the learned Historian of the church ; to whose dili- 
gence and fidelity, in collecting Ecclesiastical facts, we 
are more indebted, than to the labors of all other men, 
for that period which intervened between the days of 
the apostles and his own times. Eusebius may be 
considered as giving his testimony about one hundred 
years after Ortgen. His catalogue may be seen in 
his Ecclesiastical History.* In it, he enumerates every 
book which we have now in the Canon, and no others; 
but he mentions that the Epistle of James, The second 
of Peter, and second and third of John, were doubted 
of by some ; and the Revelation was rejected by some, 
and received by others ; but Eusebius himself declares 
it to be his opinion, that.it should be received without 
doubt. 

There is no single witness among the whole number 
of Ecclesiastical writers, who was more competent to 
give accurate information on this subject, than Euse- 
bius. He had spent a great part of his life in searching 
into the antiquities of the Christian church; and he 
had an intimate acquaintance with all the records 
relating to the Ecclesiastical affairs, many of which 

were not Canonical. .This story is related in the Synodicon 
of Popus, an obscure writer, and is undeserving of the smallest 
credit. 

* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. L iii. c 25. comp. with c. 3. 



131 

are now lost ; and almost the only. information which 
we have of them has been transmitted to us by this 
diligent complier. 

3. Athanasius, so well known for his writings and 
his sufferings in defence of the divinity of our Saviour, 
in his Festal Epistle, and in his Synopsis of Scripture, 
has left a catalogue of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, which perfectly agrees with the Canon now in 
use. 

4. Cyril, in his Catechetical work, has also given 
us a catalogue, perfectly agreeing with ours, except 
that he omits the book of Revelation. Why that 
book was so often left out of the ancient catalogues and 
collections of the Scriptures, shall be mentioned here- 
after. Athanasius and Cyril were contemporary with 
Eusebius ; the latter, however, may more properly be 
considered as twenty or thirty years later. 

5. Then, a little after the middle of the fourth 
century, we have the testimony of all the bishops 
assembled in the Council op Laodicka. The 
catalogue of this council is contained in their sixtieth 
Canon, and is exactly the same as ours, except that 
the book of Revelation is omitted. The decrees of 
this council were, in a short time, received into the 
Canons of the universal church ; and among the rest, 
this catalogue of the books of the New Testament. 
Thus, we find, that as early as the middle of the 
fourth century, there was a universal consent, in all 
parts of the world to which the Christian chi.rch 
extended, as to ilie hooks which constituted the Canon 
of the New Testament, with the single exception of 
the book of Revelation 1 ; and that tl is I x ok was also 
generally aomaud to be Canonical, we dial! take the 
oppcriunity of prjtin^ i.i the sequel of this Wof^. 



132 

6. But a few years elapsed from the meeting of this 
council, before Epjphanius, bishop of Salamis, in the 
Island of Cyprus, published his work on Heresies, 
in which he gives a catalogue of the Canonical books 
of the New Testament, which, in every respect, is the 
same as the Canon now received. 

7. About the same time, Gregory Nazianzen, 
bishop of Constantinople, in a Poem, on the true 
and Genuine Scriptures, mentions distinctly all 
the books now received, except Revelation. 

8. A few days later, we have a list of the books of 
ihe New Testament in a work of Philastrius, 
bishop of Brixia, in Italy, which corresponds in all 
respects with those now received ; except that he men- 
tions no more than thirteen of Pnul'sEpisties. If the 
omission was designed, it probably relates to the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. 

9. At the same time lived Jerome, who translated 
the whole Hible into Latin. He furnishes us with a 
catalogue answering to our present Canon, in all 
respects. He does, however, speak doubtfully about 
((he Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of the uncer- 
tainty of its author. But, in other parts of his writings 
he shows, that he received this book as Canonical, as 
well as the rest.* 

10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing from 
the Canon now received.! 

11. Augustine, in his work on Christian Doc- 
trine, has inserted the names of the books of the 
New Testament, which, in all respects, are the same 
as ours. 

12. The council of Carthage, at which Au- 



* EfM* ad Pauhuum. f Expos, in JSjrnbol. Apoit, 



133 

gustine was present, have furnished a catalogue which 
perfectly agrees with ours. At this council, forty-four 
bishops attended. The list referred to, is found in their 
forty -eighth canon, 

13. The unknown author, who goes under the name 
of Dionysius the Areopagite, so describes the 
books of the New Testament, as to show that he 
received the very same as are now in the Canon. 

Another satisfactory source of evidence, in favor of 
the Canon of the New Testament, as now received, is 
the fact, that these books were quoted as Sacred Scrip- 
ture by all the Fathers, living in parts of the world the 
most remote from each other. The truth of this asser- 
tion will fully appear, when we come to speak particu- 
larly of the books which compose the Canon. Now, 
how can it be accounted for, that these books, and 
these alone, should be cited as authority, in Asia, 
Africa, and Europe? No other reason can be assigned, 
than one of these two; either, they knew no other 
books which claimed to be Canonical ; or, if they did 
they did not esteem them of equal authority with those 
which they cited. On either of these grounds the 
conclusion is the same, that the books quoted 
as Scripture are alone the Canonical books. 
To apply this rule to a particular case, The first 
Epistle of Peter is Canonical, because it is con- 
tinually cited by the most ancient Christian writers, in 
every part of the world ; but the book called The 
Revelation of Peter, is apocryphal, because none 
of the early Fathers have taken any testimonies from 
it. The same is true of the Acts of Peter, and 
The Gospel of Peter. These writings were 
totally unknown to the primitive church, and are 
therefore spurwus- This argument is perfectly con- 

M 



134 

elusive, and its force was perceived by the ancient 
defenders of the Canon of the New Testament. Euse- 
bius repeatedly has recourse to it, and, therefore, 
those persons who have aimed to unsettle our present 
Canon, as Toland and Dodwell, have altempted 
to prove that the early Christian writers were in the 
habit of quoting indifferently, and promiscuously, the 
books which we now receive, and others w-hich are 
now rejected as apocryphal. But this is not correct, 
as has been shown by Nye, Richardson, and others. 
The true method of determining this matter, is by a 
caruful examination of all the passages in the writings 
of the Fathers, where other books besides those now 
in the Canon have qeen quoted. Some progress was 
made in collecting the passages in the writings of th@ 
Fathers, in which any reference is made to the apoc- 
ryphal books, by the learned Jeremiah Jones, in his 
New Method of settling the Canon of the 
New Testament, but the work was left incomplete. 
This author, however, positively denies that it is 
common for the Fathers to cite these books as Scrip- 
ture, and asserts, that there are only a very few in- 
stances, in which any of them seem to have fallen into 
this mistake. 

A third proof of the genuineness of the Canon of 
the New Testament, may be derived from the fact, 
that these books were publicly read as Scripture, in all 
the Christian churches. 

As the Jews were accustomed to read the Sacred 
Scriptures of the Old Testament in their Synagogues, 
so the early Christians transferred the same practice 
to the church ; and it seems to have heen in use ever* 
in the apostles' days, as appears by Col. iv. 16., where 
Paul speaks of reading the Epistles addressed to the 



135 

churchs, as a thing of course, " And when this Epis- 
tle is read among you, cause that it be read also in 
the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise 
read the Epistle from Laodicea." 

Justin Martyr explicitly testifies, that this was 
the custom in the beginning of the second century. 
4 -'On the day," says he. "which is called Sunday, 
there is a meeting of all (Christians) who lived either 
in cities, or country places, and the memoirs of 
the Apostles, and writings of the prophets, are 
read."* 

Tertullian is equally explicit; for, in giving an 
account of the meetings of Christians for worship, he 
says, u They assembled to read the Scriptures, and 
offer up prayers;" and in another place, among the 
solemn exercises of the Lord's Day, he reckons, '• Read- 
ing ihe Scriptures, singing Psalms," &c.t 

The same account is given by Cyprian.J and by 
the ancient author under the name of Dionysius 
the Areopagite;§ and by several other ancient 
authors. Now this practice of reading the Sacred 
Scriptures in the Christian churches, began so early, 
that it is scarcely possible that they could have been 
imposed on by supposititious writings. A more effec- 
tual method of guarding against apocryphal writings 
obtaining a place in the Canon, could not have been 
devised. It afforded all the members of the church an 
opportunity of knowing what books were acknow- 
ledged as Canonical, and precluded all opportunity of 
foisting in spurious works ; since, if this had been done 
in some one church, the practice of all other churches 



* Apol. ii. p. 93. f Tertull. De Anima. 

J Cyp, Epist. 36, 39. | Hierarcb. Eco. c. 3. 



136 

would quickly have exposed the imposture. Accord- 
ingly, the Fathers often referred to this custom, as the 
guide to the people, respecting the books which they 
should read ; "Avoid apocryphal books," says Cyril 
to his catechumen, " and study carefully those Scrip- 
tures Only, WHICH ARE PUBLICLY READ IN THE 

church." Again, having given a catalogue of the 
books of Scripture, he adds, " Let others be rejected j 
and such as are not read in the churches, 
neither do you read in private." 

It was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, 
" That no private Psalms should be read in the 
churches, nor any books without the Canon ; but only 
the Canonical writings of the Old and New Testa- 
ment," The same thing was determined in the 
Council of Carthage. But notwithstanding these 
decrees, and the opinions of learned Fathers, there 
were some pieces read in some of the churches, which 
were not Canonical, Thus, Dionysius, bishop of 
Corinth, in the second century, in a letter to the 
church of Rome, tells them, " That they read in their 
assemblies, on the Lord's day, Clement's Epistle." 
And Eusebius declares, "That in his, and the pre- 
ceding times, it was almost universally received, and 
read in most churches." He says also, " That the 
Shepherd or Hermas, was read in many church- 
es," which is confirmed by Athanasius and Rufin, 
Whilst these books, which are now in the Canon, 
were publicly read in many churches, the hook of 
Revelation was not, according to Cyril, read in the 
churches ; nor commanded to be read by the Council 
of Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at first view, 
that the application of this rule would exclude the 
book of Revelation from the Canon, and take in 



137 

the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd 
of Hermas. But the rule does not apply to every 
thing which was read in the churches, but to such 
books as were read as Sacred Scripture. It has 
appeared in a former part of this work, that several 
books, not in the Canon of the Old Testament, were 
nevertheless read in the churches; but the Fathers 
carefully distinguished between these and the Canoni- 
cal books. They were read for instruction and for 
the improvement of manners, but not as authority in 
matters of faith; They distinguished the books read, 
in the churches, into Canonical and Ecclesiastical ; 
of the latter kind, were the books mentioned above, 
and some others. The reason why the book of Reve- 
lation was not directed to be read publicly, shall be 
assigned, when we come to treat particularly of the 
Canonical authority of that book. 

A fourth argument to prove that our Canon of the 
New Testament is substantially correct, may be derived 
from the early versions of this sacied book into other 
languages. 

Although the Greek language was extensively 
known through the Roman empire, when the apostles 
wrote; yet the Christian church was in a short time 
-extended into regions, where the common people, at 
least, were not acquainted with it, nor with any lan- 
guage except their own vernacular tongue. While 
the gift of tongues continued, the difficulty of making 
known the Gospel, would in some measure, ] 
ted; but when these miraculous powers :- 
necessity of a version of the Gospels a 
the language of the people, would 
As far, therefore, as we may be per 
from the -nature of the case, an! the 

M 2 



138 

churches, it is exceedingly probable, that versions of 
the New Testament were made shortly after the death 
of the apostles, if they were not begun before. Can 
we suppose that the numerous Christians in Syria, 
Mesopotamia, and the various parts of Italy, would be 
long left without having these precious books transla- 
ted into a language which all the people could under- 
stand ? But we are not left to our own reasonings 
on this subject. We know, that at a very early period, 
there existed Latin versions of the New Testament, 
which had been so long in use before the time of 
Jerome, as to have become considerably corrupt, on 
which account he undertook a New r Version, which 
soon superceded those that were more ancient. Now. 
although nothing remains of these ancient Latin 
Versions, but uncertain fragments, yet we have good 
evidence that they contained the same books, as were 
inserted in Jerome's Version, now denominated the 
Vulgate. 

But, perhaps, the Old Syriac Version of the New 
Testament, called Peshito, furnishes the strongest 
proof of the Canonical authority, of all the books which 
are contained in it. This excellent version has a 
very high claim to antiquity ; and, in the opinion of 
some of the best Syriac scholars, who have profoundly 
examined this subject, was made before the close of 
the first century. 

The arguments for so early an origin, are not, in- 
deed, conclusive, but they possess much probability, 
whether we consider the external, or internal evidence. 
The Syrian Christians have always insisted that this 
version was made by the apostle Thaddeus; but 
without admitting this claim, which would put it on a 
level with the Greek oiiginal, we may believe that it 



139 

ought not to be brought down lower than the second 
century. It is universally received by all the numerous 
sects of Syrian Christians, and must be anterior to the 
existence of the oldest of them. Manes, who lived in 
the second century, probably had read the New Tes- 
tament in the Syriac, which was his native tongue : 
and Justin Martyr, when he testifies that the 
Scriptures of the New Testament were read in the 
Assemblies of Christians, on every Sunday, probably 
refers to Syrian Christians, as Syria was his native 
place ; where, also, he had his usual residence. And 
Michaelis is of opinion, that Melito, who wrote 
about A. D. 170, has expressly declared, that a Syrian 
Version of the Bible existed in his time. Jerome also 
testifies, explicitly, that when he wrote, the Syriac 
Bible was publicly read in the churches ; for, says he r 
" Ephrem the Syrian is held in such veneration, that 
his writings are read in several churches, immediately 
after the Lessons from the Bible. It is also well 
known, that the Armenian Version, which itself is 
ancient, was made from the Syriac. 

Now, this ancient Version contains the Four Gos- 
pels, The Aets of the Apostles, The Epistles of Paul 
including that to the Hebrews, The First Epistle of 
John, The First Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of 
James. Thus far, then, the evidence of the present 
Canon is complete ; and as to those books omittted in 
this Version, except Revelation, they are few, and 
small, and probably were unknown to the translator or 
the evidence of their genuineness was not ascertained by 
him. And as it relates to the book of Revelation, the 
same reasons which excluded it from so many ancient 
catalogues, probably operated here. It was judged to 
be too mysterious to be read in the churches, and by 



140 

Common Christians, and, therefore, was not put into 
the Volume which was read publicly in the churches. 

The arguments for a Latin origin of this Version, 
possess, in my judgment, very little force.* 

On the general evidence of the genuineness of our 
Canon, [ would subjoin the following remarks : 

1. The agreement among those vvho have given 
catalogues of the books of the New Testament, from 
the earliest times, is almost complete. Of thirteen 
catalogues, to which we have referred, seven contain 
exactly the same books, as are now in the Canon. 
Three of the others differ in nothing but the omission 
of the book of Revelation, for which they had a partic- 
ular reason, consistent with their belief of its Canoni- 
cal authority ; and in two of the remaining catalogues^ 
it can be proved, that the books omitted, or represented 
as doubtful, w T ere received as authentic by the persons 
who have furnished the catalogues. It may be asserted^ 
therefore, that the consent of the ancient church, as to 
what books belonged to the Conon of the New Testa- 
ment, was complete. The Sacred Volume was as 
accurately formed, and as clearly distinguished from 
other books, in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as 
it has ever been since. 

2. Let it be considered, moreover, that the earliest 
of these catalogues was made by Origen, who lived 
within a hundred years after the death of the apostle 
John, and who, by his reading, travels, and long resi- 
dence in Palestine, had a full knowledge of ail the 
transactions and writings of the church, until his own 
time. In connexion with this, let it be remembered, 

* On this whole subject, consult Jones on the Canoo^ 
Michaelis's Introduction, Mill's Prolegomena. 



141 

that these catalogues were drawn up by the most 
learned, pious, and distinguished men in the church ; 
or by councils; and that the persons furnishing them, 
resided in different and remote parts of the world. As, 
for example, in Jerusalem, Cesaraea, Carthage and 
Hippo in Africa, Constantinople, Cyprus, Alexandria 
in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Thus, it appears, 
that the Canon was early agreed upon, and* that it 
was every where the same ; therefore, we find the 
Fathers, in all their writings, appealing to the same 
Scriptures; and none are charged with rejecting any 
Canonical book, except heretics. 

3.. It appears from the testimony adduced, that it 
was never considered necessary, that any council, or 
bishop, should give sanction to these books, in any 
other way, than as witnesses, testifying to the churches, 
that these were indeed the genuine writings of the 
apostles. These books, therefore^ were never con- 
sidered as deriving their authority from the Church, or 
from Councils, but were of complete authority as soon 
as published ; and were delivered to the churches to 
be a guide and standard in all things relating to faith 
and practice. The Fathers would have considered it 
impious, for any bishop or Council, to pretend to add 
any thing to the a-thority of inspired books ; or to 
claim the right to add other books to those handed 
down from the apostles. The church is founded on 
the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
being the chief corner stone ; but the Sacred 
Scriptures are no how dependent for their authority 
on any set of men who lived since they were written. 

4. We may remark, in the last place, the benignant 
providence of God towards his church, in causing 
these precious books to be written, and in watching 



142 

over their preservation, in the midst of dangers and 
persecutions ; so that, notwithstanding the malignant 
designs of the enemies of the church, they have all 
come down to us unmutilated, in the original tongue 
in which they were penned by the apostles. 

ur liveliest gratitude is due to the great Head of 
the church for this divine treasure, from which we are 
permitted freely to draw whatever is needful for our 
ins ion and consolation. And it is our duty to 
prize. this precious gift of divine revelation, above all 
price On the Law of the Lord, we should meditate 
day night. It is a perfect rule ; it shines with a 

clem it; it exercises a salutary influence on the 
hear. Aarns us when we are in danger; reclaims 
us v we go astray: and comforts us when in 

affliction The word of the Lord is "more to be 
desir an gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter 

also than honey, and the honey comb."* They w r ho 
are des ite of this inestimable volume call for our 
tenderer compassion, and our exertions in circulating 
the Bible should never be remitted, until all are sup- 
plied with this divine treasure. But they who possess 
this Sacred Volume, and yet neglect to study it, are 
still more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the 
midst of plenty. In the midst of light, they walk in 
darkness. God has sent to them the word of life, 
but they have highly esteemed the rich gift of his 
love. O that their eyes were opened, that they might 
behold wondrous things in the Law of the Lord ! 

* Ps. xix. 10. 



SECTION III. 

ORDFR OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT— 
TIME OF THE GOSPELS BEING WRITTEN — NOTICE 
OF THE EVANGELISTS, 

The order of the books of the New Testament is not 
uniform, in the manuscripts now extant, nor as they 
are mentioned by the Fathers. Eusebius arranges 
them thus: the Four Gospels, The Acts of the Apos- 
tles, The Epistles of Paul The First Epistle of John, 
and the Revelation of John. " These," says he, 
" were received (except the last mentioned) by all 
Christians." Then, he mentions those which were not 
unanimously received ; as, The Epistle of James, The 
Epistle of Jude, the Second of Peter, and the Second 
and Third of John. 

Iren^eus, who lived long before Eusebius, has not 
given a regular catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, but he seems to have followed the same 
order. 

But Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, has given 
the following order : The Four Gospels, The Acts of 
the Apostles, The Seven Catholic Epistles, The Four- 
teen Epistles of Paul, and The Revelation. The 
ancient and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript, follows 
the same order; as also does Cyril of Jerusalem, but 
he does not mention Revelation. 

The arrangement, in the catalogue of the Council 



144 

or Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of Cyril; 
the book of Revelation being left out. 

John Damascene, and Leontius, follow the same 
order. 

The order of the Syrian catalogues as given by 
Ebedjesu, is-— The Four Gospels, The Acts of the 
Apostles, The Three Catholic Epistles, (their Canon 
at first contained no more,) and the Fourteen Epistles 
of Paul. 

Rufin's order, is — The Gospels, The Acts, Paul's 
Epistles, The Catholic Epistles, and The Revelation. 

The Council of Carthage has the same. 

Gregory Nazianzen the same ; only Revelation 
is omitted. 

Amphilochius the same, and the book of Revela- 
tion, mentioned as doubtful. 

Nicephorus of Constantinople, the same, and 
Revelation omitted. 

This, therefore, appears to have been the order in 
which the books of the New Testament succeeded 
each other in most ancient copies ; and is the one now 
in general use. 

But Epiphanius has an order different from any 
of these, as follows— The Four Gospels, Paul's Epis- 
tles, The Acts of the Apostles, The Seven Catholic 
Epistles, and the Revelation. 

Jerome follows the same order ; and also Eutha- 
lius. 

Augustine varies, in his arrangement of the 
Sacred books. In one place, he puts the Acts last, 
except Revelation ; and in another, he places it after 
Revelation. He also varies in his arrangement of the 
Epistles of Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles. 

The order of Innocent the First, bishop of 



145 

Some, is : The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, The 
Catholic Epistles, The Acts, and Revelation. 

Isidore of Seville has, in his wrttings, given 
several catalogues, in all of which he pursues the 
order last mentioned. The same writer informs us, 
that the books of the New Testament were usually 
included in two divisions, or volumes ; the first con- 
taining the Gospels ; the second, The Acts and The 
Epistles ; the book of Revelation being omitted. 

Chrysostom follows an order which appears to be 
peculiar: he places first, The Fourteen Epistles of 
Paul; next, The Four Gospels; then, the Acts: and 
in the last place, The Catholic Epistles. 

Gelasius places Revelation before The Catholic 
Epistles. 

The Apostolical Canon, as it is called, contains 
the following catalogue : The Four Gospels, Fourteen 
Epistles of Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epis- 
tles of Clement, The Constitutions, and The Acts. If 
this were, indeed, the genuine Canon of the apostles, 
as the title imports, it would be decisive, and all other 
authorities would be superfluous; but it is acknow- 
ledged, by all good critics, that it is spurious, and of 
no authority in settling the early Canon. 

The order of the Four Gospels has generally been, 
as in our copies, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Iren- 
seus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, The Council of 
Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, The 
Syrian Catalogues, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, The 
Alexandrian Manuscript, with most others, agree in 
this older. 

But that this order was not uniform, appears from 
Tertullian, who arranges them thus— Matt! \ John^ 
Luke, Mark. And the same order of the Gospefe is 

N 



146 

followed, in the very ancient Manuscript, commonly 
called, Couex Cantabrigiensts. 

There is very little variation observed, in the ar- 
rangement of Paul's Epistles; they are generally 
found in the same order, as we have them in our 
copies; but this is not universally the case: for in 
some copies, The Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the 
Fourteenth place among Paul's Epistles, and in others 
the Tenth. But in all copies, The Epistle to the 
Romans, stands first ; though not first, in the order of 
time. 

With respect to the time, when the Gospels were 
written, no precise information can be obtained, as 
ancient authors differ considerably, on the subject. It 
seems to be agreed, however, that they were not pub- 
lished immediately after the ascension of Christ: nor, 
all at the same time. The best thing which we can 
do, is to place before the reader, the principal testimo- 
nies of the Fathers, and leave him to judge for him- 
self.* 

The earliest writer who says any thing expficitly 
on this subject, is, Iren^eus ; but he does not inform 
us what time intervened between the resurrection of 
Christ, and the writing of these Gospels. His words 
are; " For we have not received the knowledge of the 
way of salvation, from any others than those by whom 
the Gospel has been brought to us, which Gospel they 
first preaehcd, and afterwards, by the will of God, 
committed to writing, that for time to come it might 
be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor, may 

* The testimonies here adduced are, for the most part, 
selected from the collections of Lardner, to whose works th« 
reader is referred. 



147 

any say that they preached before they had a compe- 
tent knowledge of the Gospel ; for after that our Lord 
rose from the dead, and they were endued, from 
above, with the power of the Holy Ghost, which had 
come down upon them, they received a perfect know- 
ledge of all things. They went forth to all the ends 
of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly 
peace; having all of them, and every one of them, the 
Gospel of God." 

Now 7 let it be considered, that. Irenseus was the 
disciple of Poly carp, who was the disciple of the apos- 
tle John, and this testimony will have great weight in 
confirming the fact, that the Gospels were written by 
the apostles, some time after they began to preach. 
And that, wherever the apostles went, they preached 
the same Gospel to the people. 

Eusebius, to whom we are obliged so often to have 
recourse, as a witness of ancient Ecclesiastical facts, 
does not fail us here; "Those admirable and truly 
divine men," says he, "the apostles of Christ, did not 
attempt to deliver the doctrine of their master, with the 
artifice and eloquence of words. . . . Nor were 
they concerned about writing books ; being engaged in 
a more excellent ministry, which is above all human 
power. Insomuch that Paul, the most able of all, in 
the furniture of words and ideas, has left nothing in 
writing but a few Epistles.— Nor were the rest of our 
Saviours followers unacquainted with these things, as 
the seventy disciples, and many others, besides the 
twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of 
our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any 
Memoirs; who, also, as we have been informed, were 
impelled to write, by a kind of necessity," 

Theodore of Mopsuesta, who lived m the latter 



148 

part of the fourth century, has left us the Mowing 
testimony; "After the Lord's ascension to heaven, the 
disciples staid a good while at Jerusalem, visiting the 
cities in the vicinty, and preaching chiefly to the Jews; 
and the great Paul was appointed, openly to preach 
the Gospel to the Gentiles." 

"In process of Divine Providence, they, not being 
allowed to confine themselves to any one part of the 
earth, were conducted to remote countries. Peter went 
to Rome; the others elsewhere. John took up his 
abode at Ephesus, visiting, however, other parts of 
Asia. . . . About this time, the Evangelists, Mat- 
thew, Mark and Luke, published their Gospels, which 
were soon spread over the world, and were received by 
all the faithful with great regard. . . . That, nu- 
merous Christians in Asia having brought these Gos- 
pels to John, earnestly entreated him to write a further 
account of such things as were needful to be known, 
and had been omitted by the rest ; with which request 
he complied." 

By divers Christian writers of antiquity, it has been 
asserted, that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
Peter, at the earnest request of the brethren at Rome, 
wrote a short Gospel, according to what he had heard 
related by Peter. This testimony, among others, is 
given by Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men. 

It is probable that Peter did not visit Rome before 
the reign of Nero; perhaps, not until Paul had re- 
turned a second time to that city, which must have 
been as late as the year A. D. 63, or 64. Now. 
as the brethren requested of Mark, to give them in 
wrting the substance of Peters preaching, his gospel 
could not have been written, at an earlier period. And, 
it would seem, if this fact be undoubted, that they 



149 

had, until this time, never seen a written Gospel; and. 
probably, did not know that there was one in exis- 
tence. 

The Jewish war, according to Joseph us, began in 
the year of our Lord 66, and ended in September of 
the year 70 ; w T hen the city and temple were brought 
to desolation. IN'ow, there is strong probable evidence, 
that the Gospels of Matthews Mark, and Luke, were 
finished before this war commenced ; that is, before 
■the year of our Lord, sixly-six. Each of them contains 
the predictions of our Lord, respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and there is no hint in any of vhem, that 
the remarkable events connected with this overthrow, 
had begun to make their -appearance. But there are 
-some expressions in these Gospels, which probably 
indicate, that the writers thought that these wonderful 
events were at hand. Such as the following admoni- 
tion, ;, let him that readeth, understand." 

It is certain, that the Acts of die Apostles could not 
ha»ve been finished before A. D. 62, or 63, because the 
histoiy which it contains comes down to that time, 
The Gospel by Luke was probably written a short 
•time before. At least, this seems to be the common 
opinion of learned men. Jerome supposes that he 
-composed his gospel at Rome ; Grotius thinks, that 
when Paul left Rome, Luke went into Greece, and 
there wrote his Gospel and the Acts. 

From the introduction to Luke's gospel, it would 
seem, that he knew nothing of any aut entic written 
gospel ;it that time; for he cannot be supposed to 
refer to such, when he says, ''Forasmuch as many 
have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration 
of those things which are most surely believed among 
us;" and if he had known that Matthew had written 

n2 



150 

a gospel, he could not easily have avoided some refe- 
rence to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner 
from this fact, that no authentic gospel had been writ- 
ten before this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant 
to all the testimony which we have on the subject 
The gospel of Matthew might have been circulating 
for some time among the churches in Judea, and 
yet not be known to Luke, whose labors and travels 
led him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile 
countries and cities. If we pay any regard to the 
opinions of those, who lived nearest the times of the 
apostles, we must believe, that the Gospel of Matthew 
was first written, and in the vernacular dialect of 
Judea, commonly called Hebrew. The writer of this 
gospel is also called Levi, the son of Alpheus. He 
was a Galilean, by nation, and a Publican by profes- 
sion. When called to follow Christ, he was sitting at 
the receipt of custom, where the taxes were paid, but 
he immediately left all these temporal concerns, and 
attached himself to Christ, who afterwards selected 
him as one of the Twelve. From this time he seems 
to have been constantly with Christ until his cruci- 
fixion, of which event he was doubtless a witness ; as 
he was also of the resurrection and ascension of his 
Lord. On the day of Pentecost, he was present with 
his brethren, and partook of the rich spiritual endow- 
ments, which were then bestowed on the apostles. 
But, afterwards, there is no explicit mention of him in 
the New Testament. In his own catalogue of the 
Twelve, his name occupies the eighth place, as it doea 
in the Acts ; but in the lists of the Apostles, contained 
in the gospels of Luke and Mark, it occupies the 
seveneth place. 

There is an almost total obscurity, resting on the 



151 

history of this Apostle and Evangelist. The scene of 
his labors, after he left Judea, seems to have been in 
regions, of which we possess very little accurate infor- 
mation to this day. But whether he had Parthia and 
Persia, or Eithopia, for the field of his apostolical 
labors, the ancients are not agreed. It is by no means 
impossible that he should have preached the gospel, 
and planted churches, in each of these countries. The 
historian Socrates, in his distribution of the apostles 
among the countries of the Globe, assigns Ethiopia to 
Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India to Bartholo- 
mew. 

The testimony of Eusebius is as follows: "This 
then was the state of the Jews, but the apostles and 
disciples of our Lord, being dispersed abroad, preached 
in the whole world, Thomas in Parthia : Andrew in 
Sythia ; John in Asia, who having lived there a long 
time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached to the dispersed 
Jews, in Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, and 
Asia ; at length, coming to Rome, he was there cruci- 
fied, with his head turned down towwds the earth, at 
his own request. Paul also died a martyr at Rome, as 
we are informed by Origen, in the third Tome of his 
work on Genesis." But Eusebius makes no mention 
of the apostle Matthew; nor does Jerome, in his 
account of Illustrious Men. 

Clement of Alexandria mentions a circumstance 
of this apostle's mode of life, but nothing more : he 
says, ci That he was accustomed to use a very spare 
diet, eating vegetables, but no flesh." 

Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, gives the 
character of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts. 

It is probable, threfore, that very little was known 
in the west, respecting the lives, labours, and death, of 



152 

those apostles who travelled far to the east. None of 
them, it is prohable, ever returned ; and there existed 
no regular channels for the communication of intelli* 
gence, from those distant regions. The honor of mar- 
tyrdom has been given to them all ; and the thing is 
not improbable ; but there are no authentic records 
from which we can derive any certain information on 
this subject. The Fathers, whose writings have come 
down to us, seem to have been as much in the dark as 
we are, respecting the preaching and death of the 
majority of the apostles. There are, it is true, tradi- 
tions in Ethiopia and the east, in regard to some of 
diem, but they are too uncertain to deserve any serious 
consideration. 



SECTION IV. 

TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW^ GOSPEL TIME OF 

PUBLICATION LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS 

ORIGINALLY COMPOSED. 

But while we know so little of the apostolical labors 
of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that 
the testimonies respecting the genuineness of his 
gospel, are so early and full. To these we will now 
direct our attention. 

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquainted 
with the Apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew's 
gospel ; and asserts,- " That he wrote the divine oracles 
in Hebrew." 

Iren^us, bishop of Lyons, who was born in Asia, 
and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the 
apostle John, gives the following testimony : " Mat- 
thew, then among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their 
language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at 
Rome .... And after their decease, Mark, 
also the disciple of Peter, delivered to us the things 
which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the 
companion of Paul, put down in a book, the gospel 
preached by him. Afterwards, John, who leaned on 
his Lord's breast, published a gospel for the inhabitants 
of Asia." 

In another place he says, " The gospel of Matthew 
was delivered to the Jews." 

Origen, who was born in the second century, and 



154 

wrote and flourished in the beginning of the third, has 
left us the following testimony : " According to the 
traditions received by me, the first gospel was written 
by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple 
of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, 
composed in the Hebrew language. 

And in another place he says, " Matthew wrote for 
the Hebrews.' 5 

Eusebius, who lived about a hundred years later 
than Origen, informs us, that "Matthew, having first 
preached the gospel to the Hebrews, when about to go 
to other people, delivered to them, in their own language, 
the gospel written by himself: by that supplying the 
want of his presence with them, whom he was about 
to leave." 

In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to Atha- 
nasius, it is said, " Matthew wrote his gospel in the 
Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem." 

Cyril of Jerusalem testifies, " That Matthew wrote 
in Hebrew." 

Epifhanius says the same, and adds, u Matthew 
wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower 
of Peter at Rome." 

Gregory Nazianzen, " That Matthew wrote for 
the Hebrews." 

Ebedjesu, the Syrian, " That Matthew, the first 
"Evangelist, published his gcspel in Palestine, written 
in Hebrew." 

Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew, testifies 
that " The first Evangelist is Matthew, the publican, 
surnamed Levi, who wrote his gospel in Judea, in the 
Hebrew language, chiefly for the Jews who believed 
in Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the Law with 
the truth of the gospel." 



155 

Again, in his book of Ecclesiastical writers, he says. 
"Matthew, called also Levi, of a publican made an 
apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew 
lansruage, for the sake of those in Judea who believed, 
By whom it was afterwards translated into Greek is 
uncertain.'' 

Chrysostom, in his introduction (o this gospel, 
writes, :; Matthew is said to have written his gospel at 
the request of the Jewish believers, who desired him 
to put down in writing what he had said to them by 
word of mouth ; and it is said he w T rote in Hebrew.*' 

It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimonies 
from later writers ; but as they mention some circum- 
stances probably received by tradition, and not contained 
in the earlier testimonies, I will subjoin a few of them. 

Cosmas, who lived in the sixth century, reports. 
that "Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A 
persecution having arisen after the stoning of Stephen, 
and he having resolved to go from that place, the 
believers entreated him to leave with them a written 
instruction ; with which request he complied." 

Another author of this century, who wrote a dis- 
course on Matthew, has left this testimony: " The 
occasion of Matthew's writing is said to have been 
this — there being a great persecution in Palestine, so 
that there was danger lest the faithful should he dis- 
persed ; that they might not be without teaching, they 
requested Matthew to write for them an accurate history 
of all Christ's words and w r orks ; that wherever they 
should be, they might have with them the ground of 
their faith.*' 

In the Paschal Chronicle, written in the seventh 
century, it is intimated, that Matthew published his 
gospel about fifteen years after our Lord's ascension. 



156 

Euth YMius, in the beginning of the twelfth century. 
says, " That this gospel was first written in the Hebrew 
language for the Jewish believers, eight years after our 
Lord's ascension." 

From these testimonies, it appears, that the Fathers 
had no certain knowledge of the exact time when 
Matthew wrote his gospel. Ireneeus refers it to the 
period when Paul and Peter were preaching at Rome, 
but he speaks vaguely on the subject. 

The writers who mention a precise time, lived at too 
late a period to give testimony on this subject. But 
all agree, that this was the first gospel written. 

Among the moderns, there is much diversity of 
opinion, as might be expected, where there is little else 
than conjecture to guide them. 

Lardner and Basnage supposed that this gospel 
was not written before A. D. 64. 

Cave thought that it was written fifteen years after 
the ascension of Christ. 

Jer. Jones is in favor of that opinion which places 
it eight years after the ascension. 

Groti us and G. J. Yossius are of the same opinion. 
So also is Wetstein. 

But, Tillemont carries it up to the third year after 
the crucifixion our of Saviour.* 

Lardner and Percy have adduced arguments for 
a late or i gen of this gospel, derived from internal evi- 
dence, but they are of very inconsiderable weight. 

As it is agreed that it was written before Matthew 
left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign parts, and as 
this event seems to have occurred after the persecution 

*Tomline, Townson, Home, Townsend, &c. plead for as 
early origen of this Gospel, refering it to A. D. 36, or 37. 



157 

Which was raised at Judea against the church, it seems 
probable, that they are nearest the truth, who place it 
about eight years after the ascension of Christ ; which 
date unites more writers in its support than any other. 

Not only the date, but the original language of this 
gospel has been made a subject of controversy, By 
the testimonies already cited, it seems that there was 
but one opinion among the ancients in regard to this 
matter. With one voice they inform us, that it 
was written in Hebrew ; or in the vernacular tongue 
of the Jews, which in the Scriptures, and by the 
Christian Fathers, is called Hebrew. This language is 
now called Syro-Chaldaic, or Western Aramean, but 
it consisted chiefly of words derived from Hebrew 
origin, and was, in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a 
large mixture of foreign words, and by various changes 
in the prefixes and affixes of the words. This was 
the language in which Jesus Christ spoke and delivered 
all his discourses ; and which the apostles were accus- 
tomed to speak from their childhood. 

Although the Greek language was understood by 
all the learned in Judea, at this time, and by many of 
the people, yet it was not the vernacular language of 
the Jews, dwelling in Palestine. In a book composed 
for the immediate use of the churches in Judea, it was 
necessary that it should be in that language which they 
all understood ; which was neither pure Hebrew nor 
Greek. The testimony of the Fathers is, therefore, 
strengthened by a consideration of the nature of the 
case. And if it were not so, yet when the judgment 
of modern critics stands opposed to the universal testi- 
mony of the ancients, in regard to a matter of fact, 
which occurred not long before their time, there ought 
to be no hesitation which is most deserving of credit, 

o 



158 

There is, however, one difficulty attending this 
opinion, which is, that it supposes that the original of 
this gospel is lost, and we have now nothing but a 
translation, which opinion would lessen its Canonical 
authority. 

It must be confessed^ that this is a consequence of a 
serious kind^ and one which ought not to be received 
respecting any Canonical book without necessity. But 
does this conclusion necessarily follow from the admis- 
sion, that this gospel w&s originally composed in the 
Hebrew language ? Might there not have been a ver- 
sion immediately prepared by the writer himself, or by 
some other person under his superintendence ? This 
being the first gospel that was composed, it would, 
naturally be in great request with all Christians who 
knew of its existence ; and as none but the Jewish 
Christians could understand it, as first published, it is 
exceedingly probable, that a request was made of the 
author to publish an edition of it in Greek, also, by 
these who did not understand the Hebrew ; or, by such 
as were going to preach the gospel in countries where 
the Greek language was in common use. 

It has been considered a strong objection to the He- 
brew original of this gospel, that no person, whose 
writings have come down to us, has intimated that he 
had ever seen it ; and from the earliest times it seems 
to have existed in the Greek language. But this fact 
is perfectly accordant with the supposition now made; 
for the desolation of Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish 
Christians, having taken place within a few years after 
the publication of Matthew's gospel, the copies of the 
original Hebrew would be confined to the Jewish con- 
verts ; and as other Christians had copies in the Greek, 
of equal authenticity with the Hebrew, no inquiries 



159 

would be made after the latter. These Jewish Chris- 
tians, after their removal, dwindled aw T ay in a short 
time, and a large part of them became erroneous in 
their faith ; and though they retained the Hebrew 
gospel of Matthew, they altered and corrupted it, to 
suit their own heretical opinions. There is reason to 
believe, that the gospel of the Nazarenes, was the iden- 
tical gospel of Matthew, which in process of time was 
greatly mutilated and corrupted by the Ebionites. Of 
this gospel much is said by the Fathers, and, in the 
proper place, we shall give some account of it. 

The only remaining objection, of any weight, against 
the ancient opinion, is, that the gospel according to 
Matthew, as we now have it, has no appearance of 
being a translation, but has the air and style of an 
original. But if the hypothesis, suggested above be 
adopted, this objection also will vanish ; for according 
to this, the Greek is an original, as well as the 
Hebrew, it having been written by Matthew him- 
self, or by some disciple under his direction. But 
whether the Greek of St. Matthew was written by 
himself or not, it is certain, that it was not later 
than the apostolic age, and received the approba- 
tion of apostles or apostolic men, which is sufficient to 
establish its authenticity.* 9 

* The learned world have been nearly equally divided on 
the question, whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or 
Greek, in favor of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellar- 
mine. Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave, Hammond, 
Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tiilemont, 
Pntius, Du Pin, Calmet, Miehaelis, a ad others. In favor of the 
Greek origi n of this gospel the names are not less numerous, nor 
less respectable. Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, 
Paraeus, Calvin, Le Clere, Fabricius, Ffeiffer, Lightfoot, Beau- 
sobre, Basuage, Wetstein, R^mpceus 5 Whitby, Edelnaan, Hoff* 



160 

man, Moldenhawer, Viser, Haries, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, 
Hey, Hales, Hewlett, and others. 

The two opinions were supported by a weight of argument 
and authority so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and a 
few others, have adopted a middle course, viz. : the opinion 
stated above, that there were two originals; by which theory 
all difficulties are removed. The only objection is the want of 
evidence. Home and Townsend have adopted this opinion* 
See Home's Introd. vokiv. Part ii. c. ii. Sec. ii. p £67 ? 



SECTION V. 

GOSPEL OF MARK — ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED 

ASCRIBED TO THE DICTATION OF PETER, BY 

ALL THE FATHERS. 

The author of the second Gospel, as they stand in 
the Canon, was Mark ; the same who is mentioned in 
the First Epistle of Peter, (v. 13;) but whether he was 
the same as John Mark, of Jerusalem, who travelled 
for a while with Paul and Barnabas, has been doubted 
by Grotius, Cave, Dupin, and Tillemont; but the com- 
mon opinion is in its favor, and the objections to it are 
not of much weight : and as there is no clear evidence, 
that there were two persons of this name, mentioned 
in Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of Mark, as 
having reference to the same person. 

Paul was offended at him because he declined 
accompanying him and Barnabas on the whole tour 
which they made, to preach the Gospel; for, when 
they came to Perga, Mark departed from them, and 
returned to Jerusalem. And when Paul and Barnabas 
were about to undertake a second journey, together, 
the latter insisted on taking Mark, as their minister, 
but Paul would by no means consent to it, because he 
had forsaken them on, their first mission. This diffe- 
rence of opinion gave rise to a sharp altercation, which 
terminated in the separation of these venerable col- 
leagues. Mark now travelled with Barnabas, but, 

o 2 



162 

probably, soon afterwards attached himself to Peter r 
with whom he seems to have continued until the 
death of that apostle. 

But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled to 
Mark, and to have valued his assistance in the work 
of the ministry ; for, in his second Epistle to Timothy r 
he writes, " Take Mark and bring him with thee, for 
he is profitable unto me for the ministry.' 5 * He also 
mentions him in his Epistle to Philemon. t 

When this gospel was composed, has not been par- 
ticularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that 
it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, 
which could not be much earlier than A. D. 62, or 63. 
It is stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren 
at Rome to put down in writing, the substance of 
Peter's preaching; and on this account, this Gospel 
among the primitive Christians was as familiarly 
known by the name of, the Gospel of Peter, as of Mark, 
This circumstance has led some to assert, that Mark 
wrote his Gospel in Latin, as this was the language of 
Rome; but in those days almost all the Romans 
understood Greek. And the Jewish converts, who 
composed a large portion of the first churches, under- 
stood Greek much better than Latin. But there is no 
need to argue this point. There is no ancient author 
who testifies that Mark wrote in Latin. The testi- 
mony is uniform, that he wrote in Greek. 

Baronius is almost the only learned man who has 
advocated the Latin origin of the Gospel of Mark, 
and he has nothing to produce in favor of this opinion 
from antiquity, except the subscription to the Syriac, 
Arabic, and Persic versions of the New Testament, 

* 2 Tim. if. 11. f Phil. 24. 



163 

where, at the end of Mark's Gospel, it is said, "He 
spoke and preached in Latin at Rome;" but this does 
not say that he wrote his Gospel in Latin. But 
these subscriptions are of very little authority in 
matters of this kind. No one knows when, or by 
whom they were placed there ; and, although three 
versions are mentioned, they make np no more than 
one witness, for, probably all the others borrowed this 
inscription fiom the Syriac. 

Augustine called Mark, "the abridger of Mat- 
thew; 7 '' and it must be confessed, that he often uses 
the same words, and tells more concisely what the 
other had related more copiously; yet, there is satisfac- 
tory evidence, that Mark's Gospel is an original work* 
It contains many things which are not in the Gospel 
of Matthew, and some mentioned by that Evangelist 
are here related with additional circumstances. 

All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his Gospel 
at Rome, but some think, at Alexandria: the former 
opinion, however, was received with almost universal 
consent. 

Some of the testimonies of the Fathers respecting 
this Gospel will now be given. 

Eusebius, out of Papias, and a lost work of Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, relates, "That when Petes, in 
the reign of Claudius, had come to Rome, and had 
defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed 
with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied 
with the hearing of them, unless they also had them 
written down. That accordingly, they, with earnest 
entreaties, applied themselves to Mark, the companion 
of Peter, and whose Gospel we now have, praying 
him that he would write down for them, and leave 
with them, an account of the doctrines which had 



164 

been preached to them; that they did not desist in 
their request, till they had prevailed on him, and pro- 
cured his writing that which is now the gospel of 
Mark, That when Peter came to know this, he was, 
by the direction of the Holy Spirit, pleased with the 
request of the people, and confirmed the Gospel which 
was written for the use of the Churches."* 

The same Eusebius relates, in another part of his 
works, what Papias had testified concerning Mark's 
Gospel, "That Mark, who w r as Peter's interpreter, 
exactly wrote down whatsoever he remembered, though 
not in the same order of time in which the several 
things were said or done by Christ; for he neither 
heard nor followed Christ, but was a companion of 
Peter, and composed his Gospel, rather with the intent 
of the people's profit, than writing a regular history ; 
so that he is in no fault, if he wrote some things ac- 
cording to his memory, he designing no more than to 
omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate 
nothing false."t 

Another testimony, from Clement of Alexandria^ 
is given by Eusebius, in which it is said, "When 
Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome, by 
the influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts 
desired Mark, as having been a long companion of 
Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, 
to write down his discourses : that upon this he com- 
posed his Gospel, and gave it to those who made this 
request; which, when Peter knew, he neither obstructed 
nor encouraged the work."* 

IreNjEus says, " That after the death of Peter and 

* Ecc. Hist. Lib. ii. c. 25. f E cc Hist. Lib. iii. c. 39. 
| Lib. vi. c. 14. 



165 

Paul who had been preaching at Rome, Mark, the dis^ 
ciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he 
had heard him preach." 

Tertullian informs us, " That the gospel published 
by Mark may be reckoned Peter's, whose interpreter 
he was." 

Origen adds, " That Mark wrote his gospel accord- 
ing to the dictates of Peter." 

Jerome tells us, " That Mark, the disciple and in- 
terpreter of Peter, wrote a short gospel, from what he 
had heard of Peter, at the request of the brethren at 
Rome, which when Peter knew, he approved and pub- 
lished in our churches, commanding the reading of it, 
by his own authority. 

Besides these testimonies, which are very explicit, 
and all go to show that Mark received his gospel from 
the preaching of Peter, there are some internal eviden- 
ces which look the same way. There are in other 
Evangelists several circumstances and facts which 
make very much for the credit of Peter, not one of 
which is hinted at in the gospel. Particular instances 
of this kind may be read, in the Third Volume of 
u Jones' new method of settling the Canon." 
. Of the Canonical authority of this gospel, no one 
of the ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt 
Some of the moderns, however, have questioned 
whether we have any evidence, that Mark and Luke 
wrote by a plenary inspiration, since they were not 
apostles. But that Mark's gospel is Canonical, is 
established by all the rulers applicable to the case. It 
was always contained in the early catalogues; was 
read as Scripture in the churches; was quoted as 
Scripture by the Fathers ; was inserted in the earliest 



166 

versions; and never doubted formerly, by #ny Christian 
writer. But this subject will be resumed hereafter. 

Eusebius reports, " That Peter, out of the abun- 
dance of his modesty, did not think himself worthy to 
write a Gospel ; but Mark, who was his friend and 
disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's relations, and 
the acts of Jesus." And again, rt Peter testifies these 
things of himself, for all things recorded by Mark are 
said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." 

In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, 
i: That the Gospel according to Mark was dictated by 
Peter at Rome, and published by Mark ; and preached 
by him in Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Lybia." 

The testimony of Epiphanius is, "That Matthew 
wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a com- 
panion of Peter, at Rome ; that Mark was one of the 
seventy disciples, and likewise one of those who were 
offended at the words of Christ, recorded in the sixth 
chapter of the Gospel of John ; that he then forsook 
the Saviour, but was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, 
and, being filled with the Spirit, wrote a Gospel." 

Gregory Nazianzen says, "That Mark wrote 
his gospel for the Italians." 

Chrysostom testifies, that "Mark wrote in Egypt,, 
at the request of the believers there;" but in another 
place, he says, " It cannot be ascertained in what place 
each of the Evangelists wrote." 

Victor informs us, "That Mark was also called 
John, and was the son of Mary, that he wrote a 
gospel after Matthew ; that for a while he accompanied 
Paul, and Barnabas his relation, but when he came to 
Rome, he joined Peter. When he was obliged to quit 
Rome, he was requested by the brethren to write a 



167 

history of his preaching, and of his heavenly doctrine ) 
with which request he readily complied." 

Cosmas of Alexandria, writes, "That Mark, the 
second Evangelist, wrote a Gospel at Rome, by the 
dictation of Peter." 

GEcumenius says, u This John, who also is called 
Mark, nephew to Barnrbas, wiote the Gospel which 
goes by his name ; and was also the disciple of Peter.* 5 

Theophyclat informs us, "That the Gospel ac- 
cording to Mark, was written at Rome, ten years after 
the ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request of the 
believers there; for, this Mark was a disciple of Peter. 
His name was John, and he was nephew to Barnabas, 
the companion of Paul."* 

Euthymius concurs exactly in this testimony* 
His words are, " The Gospel of Mark was written 
about ten years after our Lord's ascension, at the 
request of the believers at Rome, or, as some say, in 
Egypt ; that Mark was, at first, much with his uncle 
Barnabas, and Paul, but afterwards went with Peter 
to Rome, from whom he received the w T hole history of 
his Gospel.'' 

Nicephorus says, " Only two of the Twelve have 
left memoirs of our Lord's life, and two of the seventy, 
Mark and Luke." And a little after, "Mark and 
Luke published their gospels, by the direction of Peter 
and Paul." 

Euthychius, patriarch of Alexandria, has the fol- 
lowing words :" " In the time of Nero, Peter, the prince 
of the apostles, making use of Mark, wrote a gospel at 
Rome, in the Roman language." 

The reader will recollect, that this last writer lived 
as late as the tenth century, which will account for 
his calling Peter the prince of the apostles, a language 



168 

entirely foreign to the early ecclesiastical writers. 
And Selden is of opinion, that by the Roman lan- 
guage, he meant the Greek, which was then in com- 
mon use at Rome ; and it is well known, that in our 
times, the modern Greek language is called, Romaic. 
Jones and Lardner concur in the opinion of Selden, 



SECTION VI. 

0OSPEL OF LUKE— TESTIMONIES OP THE FATHERS 
RESPECTING IT. 

The third Gospel is that of Luke. He is mentioned 
in Scripture, as the companion of Paul, in his travels; 
and when that apostle was sent a prisoner to Rome, 
this evangelist accompanied him, and continued with 
him during his two years' confinement in that city, as 
niay be gathered from Paul's Epistles, written during 
this period. Whether he was the same as u The be- 
loved physician,"* mentioned by Paul, is uncertain, 
but the general opinion is in favor of it. It is also 
disputed, whether or nut he was one of the Seventy 
disciples. Without undertaking to decide these points, 
I will proceed to lay before the reader, the principal tes- 
timonies of the Fathers respecting this gcspel and its 
author. 

Iren^us asserts, "That Luke, the companion of 
Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by 
him." 

Again, he says, " Luke w r as not only a companion 
but a fellow-laborer of the apostles, especially of 
Paul." He calls him, " A disciple and fellow-laborer 
of the apostles." " The aposiles.'' says he t hi envying 

* Col. iv. 14. 

p 



170 

none, plainly delivered to all, the things which they 
had heard from the Lord." So likewise Luke, envying 
no man, has delivered to us what he learned from 
then), as he says, " Even as they delivered them unto 
us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and 
ministers of his word." 

Eus kbits informs us. that Clement of Alexandria 
bore a large testimony to this, as well as to the other 
gospels; and he mentions a tradition concerning the 
order of the gospels, which Clement had received from 
presbyters of more ancient times — u That the gospels 
containing the genealogies were written first." 

Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as dis- 
ciples of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the 
apostles ; however, he ascribes the same authority to 
the gospels written by them as to the others. " The 
gospel," says he, "which Mark published, may be 
said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was; and 
Luke's digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed 
it is easy to take that for the Master's which the dis- 
ciples published." Again, '• Moreover, Luke was not 
an apostle, but an apostolic man ; not a master but a 
disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so 
much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the 
apostles." 

Origen mentions the gospels in the order com* 
monly received — "The third," says he, " is that accord- 
ing to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, pub- 
lished for the sake of the Gentile converts." In hi* 
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which 
we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, 
"Some say Lucius is Lucas, the evangelist, as in* 
deed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes 



171 

according to the original fori i ; sometimes according' 
to the Greek and Roman termination." 

Eusebius has left us the following testimony con- 
cerninof Luke the evangelist — "And Luke who was 
of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most 
part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more 
than a slight acquaintance with the other apples, has 
left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of 
the art of healing souls, which he had learned from 
them. One of them, is the Gospel which he pro- 
fesseth to have written, as they delivered it to him, 
who, from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
ministers of his word." "With all whom," he says, 
*'he had been perfectly acquainted from the first." And 
in another place, he says, "Luke hath delivered, in 
his gospel, a certain account of such things as he had 
been assured of by his intim ite acquaintance and 
familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the 
other apostles." 

In the synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, 
" That the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle 
Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle 
and physician Luke." 

Gregory Nazianzen says, "That Luke wrote 
for the Greeks;" and Gregory Nyssen, "That 
Luke was as much a physician for the soul as the 
body." 

The testimony of Jerome concerning Luke, is as 
follows: "Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profes- 
sion a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language, 
a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant com- 
panion of his travels, wrote a gjspel, and another ex- 
cellent volume, entitled, the Acts of th^ Apos- 



172 

tlks .... It is supposed that Luke did not learn 
his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not 
conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from 
other apostles, which likewise he owns at the beginning 
of his volume, saying, 'Even as they delivered them 
unto us w r ho from the beginning were eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word.' Therefore, he wrote the 
gospel from the information of others ; but the Acts 
he composed from his own knowledge.*" 

The same writer, in the preface to his Commentary 
on St. Matthew, says, "The third evangelist is Luke, 
the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple 
of the apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the 
countries of Achaia and Boeotia." 

In another place he observes, " That some said 
that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his 
conversion to Christianity." 

Chrysostom, in his first homily on the gospel of 
Matthew, has this remark: "Luke had the fluency 
of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning 
of their masters." 

Isidore of Seville, says, " Of the four evangelists, 
the first and last relate what they had heard Christ 
say, or had seen him perform. Matthew wrote his 
gospel first in Judea ; then Mark in Italy ; Luke, the 
third, in Achaia ; John, the last, in Asia." And 
again, "of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order, 
is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek 
tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gos= 
pel in Greek." 

In Theophylact's preface to St. Matthew's gos- 



* Book of Illustrious Men. 



173 

pel, it. is said, "There are four evangelists, two of 
whirh, Matthew and John, were of the apostles ; the 
other two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the 
Seventy. Mark was a disciple and companion of 
Peter; Luke, of Paul .... Luke wrote fifteen years 
after Christ's ascension." 

In his Commentary on Luke, he observes, " That it 
appears from Lu -e's Introduction, that he was not 
from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. 
For others were disdples from the beginning-, as Peter, 
and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the 
things which they hid seen or heard." 

Euthymius savs, "Luke was a native of Antioch, 
and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, 
as some sav, one of bis Seventy disciples, as well as 
Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. 
He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fiheen 
years after our Lord's ascension." 

Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, has hand- 
ed down the following account : " In the time of the 
same emperor, (Nero) Luke wrote his Gospel in 
Greek, to a notable and w T ise man of the Romans, 
whose name was Theophilus; to whom also he wrote 
the Acts, or the history of the disciples. The evan- 
gelist Luke, was a companion of the apostle Paul, 
going with him wherever he went. For which reason, 
the apostle Paul, in one of his epistles, says^ 'Luke 
the physician salines you.' " 

The same arguments by which the Canonical au- 
thority of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were 
established, apply with their full force to the gospel 
of Luke. It ,vas universally received as Canonical 
by the whole primitive church — has a place in every 

p 2 



174 

catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which 
was ever published— is constantly referred to and cited 
by the Fathers, as a part of Sacred Scripture — 
and was one of the books constantly read in the 
churches, as a part of the rule of faith and practice for 
all believers. 

Marcion, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel ac- 
cording to Luke, which differed essentially from that 
in the Canon, but his authority has no weight, 



SECTION ViL 

THE OBJSCTIOVS OP J. L>. MICHAEUS, TO THE CA- 
NONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPKL8 OF MARK 
ANDLHK', CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED. 

J. D. Michaelis, in his introduction to the New 
Testament, as translated from the German hy Bishop 
Marsh, in the third section of the third chapter, 
speaking of the gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and 
of the Acts of the apostles, and of the grounds of 
placing them in the Canon, says, ct I must confess that 
I am unable to find a satisfactory proof of their inspira- 
tion, and the more I investigate the subject, and the 
oftener I compare their writings with those of St. 
Matthew and St. John, the greater are my doubts." 
He then goes on to say, that in a former edition of this 
work, he had stated the arguments on both sides of 
the question, but although uncertain whi h he should 
prefer, yet he had rather inclined to the affirmative. 
But now, he tells us, that he is strongly inclined to the 
negative. 

The first argument for the inspiration of these 
gospels, which the learned professor considers, is de- 
rived from the fact, that Mark and Luke were com- 
panions and assistants of the apostles. This, he says, 
can aflford no proof of their inspiration, even if it could 
be shown that they were endowed with the extraordi- 
nary gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which, however, 



176 

there is no historical proof. Because a disciple might 
possess th *se gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired. 
And if wegrounl the argument for their inspiration 
on the character of an apostle's assistant, then we must 
receive as Canonical the genuine epistle of Clement 
cf Rome, and the writings of other apostolical Fathers, 

The next argument which he considers, is, that the 
apostles themselves have recommended these gospels 
as Canonical, in their Epistles. That the passages 
depended on for proof, do refer to these or any other 
wriiten gospels, the professor denies: hut even if they 
did, he considers the evidence unsatisfactory ; for he 
supposes, that they might have commended a book as 
containing genuine historical accounts, without vouch- 
ing for its inspiration. 

The testimony of the Fathers, that these gospels 
were approved by Peier and Paul respectively, and 
with Matthew's gospel were shown to the ap >stle 
John, the learned professor sets aside with very little 
ceremony. 

And, finally, he demurs, in regard to the evidence 
of the canonical authority of these books, derived from 
the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which 
thev were undoubtedly received into the Canon ; and 
suggests, that the apostles might have recommended 
them, and the primitive church have accepted them, 
as works indispensable to a Christian on account of 
the importance of their contents, and that by insensi- 
ble degrees they acquired the character of being- 
inspired. 

On these reasonings and objections against the inspi- 
ration and canonical authority of several important 
books, which have hitherto held an unquestioned 
place in the Canon of the New Testament, and 



177 

coming from the pen of a man, too, of such extensive 
Biblical learning, I think it necessary to detain the 
reader with some remarks, which I hope will have the 
effect of counteracting the pernicious influence of the 
opinions which have been exhibited above. 

1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that it 
will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were humble, 
pi us men ; also, that they were intelligent, well in- 
formed men, and must have known that the commit- 
ting to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended 
in the gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice 
of every disciple, but became the duty of those only, 
w'i i were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake 
the work. Now, if these two disciples had been unin- 
spired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles 
w!i > possessed plenary inspiration, it w r ould have 
arm*! great presumption in them, without any direc- 
tion, to write gospels for the instruction of the church. 
The very fact of their writing, is, therefore, a strong 
evidence that they believed themselves to be inspired. 
There is then little force in the remark of the learned 
pr ^>osor, that neither St. Mark nor St. Luke have 
declared in any part of their writings, that they were 
in piied; for such a declaration was unnecessary; their 
con hut in undertaking to write such books, is the 
best evidence that they believed themselves called to 
thn \v>rk. 

And the objection to this argument, from the wri- 
tings of other apostolical men, is not valid ; for none 
of litem ever undertook to write Gospels, for the use 
of tbe church. All attempts at writing other Gospels 
th.n the four, were considered by the primitive 
ch it h as impious; because, the writers were unin- 
epir^ i men. 



178 

2. But the universal reception of these books by the 
whole primitive church as canonical, and that while 
some of the apostles were living, is the evidence, which 
to my mind is conclusive, that they were not mere 
human productions, but composed by divine inspira- 
tion. That they were thus universally received, I 
think is manifest, from the testimonies which have 
already been adduced. There is not in all the wri- 
tings of antiquity a hint, that any Christian belonging 
to the chinch ever suspected that, these Gospels were 
inferior in authority to the others. No books in the 
Canon appear to have been received with more 
universal consent, and to have been less disputed. 
They are contained in every catalogue which has 
come down to us. They are cited as Scripture by all 
that mention them; and are expressly declared by the 
Fathers to be canonical and inspired books. Now, 
let it be remembered, that this is the best evidence 
which we can have that any of the books of the New 
Testament were written by inspiration. I know, 
indeed, that Michaelis places the whole proof of inspi- 
ration on the promise made by Christ to his apostles \ 
but while it is admitted that this is a weighty conside- 
ration, it does not appear to be equal in force to 
the testimony of the Universal Church, including the 
apostles themselves, that these writings were penned 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not 
perfectly clear, that the promise referred to was con- 
fined to the twelve. Certainly, Paul, who was not of 
that number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and 
much the larger part of the twelve never wrote any 
thins i\n- the Canon. There is nothing in the New 
Testament which forbids our supposing, that other 
disciples might have been selected to write for the use 



179 

of the church. We do not wish that this should be 
believed, in regard to any persons without evidence; 
but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the 
undeniable fact, that the writings of these two men 
were from the beginning received as inspired. And 
this belief must have prevailed before the death of the 
apostles; for all the testimonies concur in statins', that 
the gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of 
Luke by Paul, and approved by them respectively. 
Now, is it credible, that these apostles, and John who 
survived them many years, would have recommended 
to the Christian church, the productions of uninspired 
men? No doubt all the churches at that time looked 
up to the apostles for guidance, in all matters that 
related to the rule of their faith ; and a general opinion 
that these gospels were canonical, could not have 
obtained without their concunence. The hypothesis 
of Michaelis, that they were recommended as useful 
human productions, and by degrees came to be con- 
sidered as inspired writings, is in itself improbable, and 
repugnant to all the testimony which has come down 
to us on tbe subject. If this had been the fact, they 
would nev«r have been placed among the books uni- 
versally acknowledged, but would have been doubted 
of, or disputed by some. The difference made between 
inspired books, and others, in those primitive times f 
was as great as at any subsequent period ; and the 
line of distinction was not only broad, but great pains 
were taken to have it drawn accurately; and w r hen 
the common opinion of the church respecting the 
gospels was formed, there was no difficulty in coming 
to the certain knowledge of the truth. For thirty 
years and more before the death of the apostle John ? 



180 

these two gospels were in circulation. If any doubt 
had existed respecting their canonical authority, would 
not the churches and their El iers have had recourse 
to this infallible authority? The general agreement 
of all Christians, over the whole world, respecting most 
of the books of the New Testament, doubtless, should 
be attributed to the authority of the apostles. If, then, 
these gospels had been mere human productions, they 
might have been read privately, but never could have 
found a place in the Sacred Canon. The oijection to 
these books comes entirely too late to be entitled to 
any weight. The opinion of a modern critic, however 
learned, is of small consideration, when opposed to the 
testimony of the whole primitive church, and to the 
suffrage of the universal church in every ^ge since the 
days of the apostles. The rule of the learned Huet, 
already cited, is sound viz. " That all those books 
should be deemed canonical and inspired, which were 
received as such by those who lived nearest to the 
time when they were published/' 

3. But. if we should, for the sake of argument, con- 
cede, that no books should be considered as inspired, 
but such as were the productions of apostles, still these 
gospels would not be excluded from the Canon. It is 
a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among 
the Fathers, that Mark wrote his gospel from the 
mouth of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had 
heard this apostle every day declaring in his public mi- 
nistry. And Luke did the same, in regard to Paul's 
preaching. These gospels therefore, may, according to 
this testimony, be considered, as more probably belong 
to these two apostles, than to the evangelists who penned 
them. They were little m >ie. it would seeem, if we give 



181 

foil credit to the testimony which has been exhibited, 
(ban amanuenses to the apostles on whom they attended. 
Paul, we know, dictated several of his Epistles to some 
of his companions; and if Mark and Luke heard the 
gospel from Peter and Paul, so often repeated, that 
they were perfect masters of their respective narratives, 
find then committed the samc^o writing, are they not-, 
virtually the productions of these apostles, which have 
been handed down to us? And this was so much the 
opinion of some of the Fathers, that they speak of 
Mark's gospel, as Peter's, and of Luke's as Paul's. 

But tliis is not all. These gospels were shown to 
these apostles, and received their approbation. Thus 
speak the ancients, as with one voice; and if they had 
been silent, we might be certain, from the circumstan- 
ces of the case, that these evangelists would never 
have ventured to take such an important step, as to 
write and publish the preaching of these inspired men, 
without their express approbation. Now, let it be 
considered, that a narrative prepared by a man well 
acquainted with the tacts related, may be entirely cor- 
rect without inspiration; but of this we cannot be 
sure, and therefore, it is of great importance to have a 
history of facts from men, who were rendered infallible 
by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should be 
remembered, however, thai the only advantage of inspi- 
ration, in giving such a narrative, consists in the proper 
selection of facts and circumstances, and in the infalli- 
ble certainly of the writing. Suppose, then, that aa 
uninspired man should prepare an account of such 
transactions as he had seen or heard from eye-witnesses 
of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative should 
be submitted to the inspection of an apostle, and receive 



182 

his full approbation ; might not such a book be con- 
sidered as inspired? If in the original composition, 
there should have crept in some errors, (fcr to err is 
human,) the inspired reviewer would, of course, 
point them out and have them corrected ; now, such a 
a book would be, for all important purpose?, an in- 
spired volume; and would deserve a place in the 
Canon of Holy Scripture. If any credit, then, is due 
to the testimony of the Christian Father?, the gospels 
of Mark and Luke, are Canonical books ; for, as was 
before stated, there is a general concurrence amon*r 
them, that these Evangelists submitted their works to 
the inspection, an,d received the approbation, of the 
apostles Peter and Paul. 

4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in 
favor of the gospels under consideration, as of any 
other books of the New Testament. There is no 
reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable of 
writing with such perfect simplicity and propriety, 
without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of 
inspired men. If we reject these books from the 
Canon, we must give up the argument derived from 
internal evidence for the inspiration of the Sacred 
Scriptures altogether. It is true, the learned professor, 
whose opinions we are opposing, has said, " The oftener 
I compare their writings (Mark's and Luke's) with thos*: 
of St. Matthew aecl St. John, the greater are my 
doubts." And speaking in another place of Mark, btJ 
says, u In some immaterial instances he seems to bane 
erred," and gives it as his opinion, "That they who 
undertake to reconcile St. Mark with St. Matthew, or 
to show that he is nowhete corrected by St. John, 
experience great difficulty, and have not seldom to 



183 

vesott to unnatural explanations." But the learned 
professor has not mentioned any particular cases of 
irreconcileable discrepancies between this evangelist 
and St Matthew; nor does he indicate in what state- 
ments he is corrected by St. John. Until something 
of this kind is exhibited, general remarks of this sort 
are deserving of no consideration. To harmonize the 
evangelists has always been found a difficult task, but 
this does not prove that they contradict each other, or 
that their accounts are irreconcilable, Many things 
which, at first sight, appear contradictory, are found, 
upon closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious ; 
*md if there be some things which commentators have 
been unable satisfactorily to reconcile, it is no more 
than what might be expected in narratives so concise, 
and in which a strict regard to chronological order did 
not enter into the plan of the writers. And if this 
objection be permitted to influence our judgment in 
this case, it will operate against the inspiration of the 
other evangelists as well as Mark; but in our appre- 
hension, when the discrepancies are impartially con- 
sidered, and all the circumstances of the facts candidly 
and accurately weighed, there will be found no solid 
ground of objection to the inspiration of any of these 
gospels ;— certainly nothing, which can counterbalance 
the strong evidence arising from the style and spirit of 
the writers. In what respects thess two evangelists 
fHIl short of the others, has never been shown ; upon 
the most thorough examination and fair comparison 
of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all 
indited by the same spirit, and to possess the same 
superiority to all human compositions. 

Compare these gospels with those which are ac- 



184 

knowledged to have been written by uninspired men ? 
and you will need no nice power of discrimination tc* 
see the difference: the first appear in every respect 
worthy of God; the last betray, in every page, the 
Weakness of man. 

I beg leave, here, to use the words of an excellent 
writer, in a late work: " The gospel of St. Luke was 
always, from the very moment of its publication, 
received as inspired as well as authentic. It was pub- 
lished during the lives of St. John. St. Peter; and St. 
Paul, and was approved and sanctioned by them a& 
inspired ; and received as such by the churches, in 
conformity to the Jewish Canon, which decided on the 
genuineness or spuriousness of the inspired hooka of 
their own church, by receiving him as a prophet, who 
was acknowledged as such by the testimony of an 
established prophet. On the same grounds Luke must 
be considered as a true evangelist; his gospel being 
dictated and approved by an apostle, of whose authority 
there can be no question. There is, likewise, sufficient 
evidence to warrant the conclusions of Whiiby — that 
both St. Mark and St. Luke were of the number of 
the seventy, who had a commission from Christ ta 
preach the gospel, not to the Jews only, but to the 
other nations — That the Holy Ghost fell on these 
among the numbers of the seventy, who formed a part 
of the hundred and twenty, assembled on the day of 
Pentecost, and from that time they were guided by 
the influences of the Holy Spirit, in writing or preach- 
ing the gospel. And if the Universal Church, from 
the first ages, received this gospel as divinely inspired, 
on these satisfactory grounds, distance of time cannot 
weaken the evidences of truth, and we are required 



185 

to receive it on the same testimony. That which 
satisfied those who had much better means of judging, 
should certainly satisfy us at this time."* 

There is something reprehensible, not to say impi- 
ous, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which has 
led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in Ger- 
many, first to attack the authority of particular books 
of script ure^ and next to call in question the inspiration 
of the whole volume. To what extent this licentious- 
ness of criticism has been carried, I need not say ; for 
it is a matter of notoriety, that of late, the most dan- 
gerous enemies of the Bible have been found occupy- 
ing the place of its advocates; and the critical art. 
which was intended for the correction of the text, and 
the interpretation of the Sacred books, has, in a most 
unnatural way, been turned against the Bible ; and 
finally, the inspiration of all the Sacred books has 
not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, by 
Professors of Theology! And these men, while 
living orTendowmenls which pious benevolence had 
consecrated for the support of religion, and openb 
connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox 
opinions, have so far forgotten their high responsibili- 
ties, and neglected the claims which the church had 
on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning 
to sap the foundation of that system which they wer# 
sworn to defend. They have had the shameless har 
dihood, to send forth into the world, books under their 
own names, which contain fully as much of the poisoa 
of infidelity as ever distilled from the pens of the mo&t 



* New TestameDt, by the Rev* George Towuaend. Vol. i 
2q 



186 

malignant deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse 
upon the world. The only effectual security which we 
have against this new and most dangerous form of 
infidelity, is found in the spirit of the age, which is so 
superficial and cursory in its reading, that, however 
many elaborate critical works may be published in 
foreign languages, very few of them will be read, evea 
by theological students, in this country. 

May God overrule the efforts of these enemies of 
Christ and the Bible, so that good may come out of 



SECTION VIII. 

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN — LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST- 
OCCASION AND TIME OF HIS WRITING — CANONI- 
CAL AUTHORITY INDISPUTABLE. 

The Fourth Gospel was written by John, the son of 
Zebedee and Salome, who was originally a fisherman 
of Galilee, ai id brother of James ; and, we may sup- 
pose, was the younger of the brothers, as he is gene- 
rally mentioned last, and is commonly reported to have 
been the youngest of all Christ's disciples. They were- 
plain uneducated men, as their occupation sufficiently 
indicates. Probably they had been disciples of John 
the Baptist, and some have conjectured that John the 
evangelist was one of the two to whom John the Bap- 
tist pointed out Jesus, and who went after him to his 
lodging. The other we know was Andrew, Simon 
Peter's brother; and John, in other cases, has con- 
cealed his own name, where any thing is mentioned 
which could be interpreted to his honor. 

Why these two brothers were surnamed Boanerges, 
by the Lord, does not clearly appear, unless we sup- 
pose that the names were prophetic of the manner of 
their preaching, when commissioned as apostles. But 
there are no facts recorded, from which any inference 
can be drawn, in relation to this subject. John hag 
been long celebrated for his affectionate temper, and 
for the suavity of his manners, which appear very 
f*markably ia all his writings; hut there is bo en* 



188 

dence that he was naturally of a meek temper. The 
facts in the gospel history would seem to indicate, that 
both he and his brother were of a fiery temper, and 
by nature very ambitious; and some have supposed, 
*hat their surname had relation to this ardour of tem- 
per, — but this is not very probable. 

We know that John was the bosom friend of Jesus 7 
the disciple whom he loved with a peculiar sffection ; 
and that he was admitted to all those scenes of a very 
interesting nature, from which most of the other disci- 
ples were excluded. 

It is also certain, that he was present at the cruci- 
fixion ; stood near the cross in company with Mary 
the mother of our Lord ; and that he remained at the 
place until the body of Jesus, now dead, was pierced 
with a spear. On the morning of the resurrection, 
John visited the sepulchre, in company with Peter ? 
and was present when Christ made his first appear- 
ance to the Eleven; and when he manifested himself 
to his disciples, at the sea of Tiberias. 

After Pentecost, he was with Peter in the temple, 
when the lame man was healed; he accompanied 
Peter also to Samaria, and was present at the council 
of Jerusalem. 

From the book of Revelation we learn, that this 
evangelist was for a time an exile in the island of 
Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, where he was 
favored with wonderful visions and communications 
from the Lord. 

It seems to have been intimated to him by his 
Lord, at the sea of Tiberias, that he should survive 
the destruction of Jerusalem; for when Peter asked ? 
"Lord what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, 
if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 



189 

thee?" which saying gave rise to an opinion among- 
the disciples, thai, that disciple should not die: "Yet 
Jesus said not nnto him, he shall not die ; but if I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?'' 
And this accords very well with the testimonies of 
the ancients, who inform us, that John lived to a 
great age. 

Iren^eus, in two places of his work against Here- 
tics, says, " That John lived to the time of Trajan/' 
which will bring us down to A* D. 98. 

Eusebius understands Clement of Alexandria to 
say the same thing. 

Origen also testifies, '"That John having lived 
long in Asia, was buried at Ephesus." 

Folycrates, who wrote in the second century, 
and was bishop of EpSiesus, asserts. ?That John was 
buried in that city." 

Jerome, in his book of Illustrious Men, and in his 
work against Jovinian, says, " That the apostle John 
lived in Asia to the time of Trajan: and dying at a 
great age, in the sixty-eighth year of our Lord's pas- 
sion, w 7 as buried near the city of Ephesus." This 
account would bring down the death of John to A r 
D. 100, in which year it is placed by this writer, in 
his Chronicon. 

The testimonies for the genuineness of the gospel 
of John, are as full and satisfactory as could be de« 
sired. 

Iren^us tells ps, < : That the evangelist John de- 
signed, by his Gospel, to confute the errors which 
Cerinthus had infused into the minds of the people, 
and had been infused by those who were called 
Nicolaitons; and to convince them, that there was. one 
$od> who made all things hy his Word; and noi> 



190 

m they imagined, one who was the Son of the 
Creator, and another who was the Christ, who con- 
tinued impassible, and descended upon Jesus, the Son 
of the Creator. 5 ' 

Jerome fully confirms this testimony of Irenseus, 
and says, "That when St. John was in Asia, where 
there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthtis, and 
others, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh- 
that is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his 
Epistle, calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequently con- 
demns, in his Epistles— he was forced by almost all the 
bishops of Asia, and the deputations of many other 
churches, to write moie plainly concerning the divinity 
of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a discourse on the 
word, not more bold than happy." 

"It is related in ecclesiastical history, that John, 
when solicited by the brethren to write, answered, that 
3m would not do it unless a public clay of fasting and 
prayer was appointed to implore God's assistance; 
which being done, and the- solemnity being honored 
with a satisfactory revelation from God, he broke forth 
into these words, In the beginning w t as the 

WORD," &C. 

Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men, says, "John 
wrote a gospel at the desire of the bishops of Asia, 
against Cerinthus, and other heretics, especially the 
doctrine of the Ebionites, then sprining up, who say, 
that Christ did not exist before the birth of Mary: for 
which reason he was obliged to declare his divine 
nativity. Another reason of his writing is ateo men- 
tioned, which is, that after having read the volumes of 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his approba- 
tion of their history, as true: but observed, that they 
had recorded an account of but one year of our Lord's 



191 

ministry, even the last after the imprisonment of Join?, 
(the Baptist) in which, also, he suffered. Omitting 
therefore that year, (in a great measure) the history 
of which had been written by the other three, he related 
the Acts of the preceding time, before John was shut 
up in prison, as may appear to those who read the 
four evangelists, which may serve to account, for the 
seeming difference between John and the rest.' 5 

Augustine, in conformity with the account of 
Jerome, says, " That this evangelist wrote concerning 
the co-eternal divinity of Christ against heretics/ 5 

Lampe has called in question these early testimo- 
nies respecting the occasion of writing this Gospel 3 and 
has attempted to prove by argument, that John had 
no view to any particular heretic?, in the commence- 
ment of his Gospel. 

Laiidner has taken the same side, and adduces 
several arguments in favor of Lamped opinion 
Titman, adopts the same. But the probable rea- 
sonings of ingenious men, when opposed to such a 
weight of ancient tesiimon}', in relation to a matter of 
fact, which occurred at no long distance before their 
time, deserve very little consideration. And, indeed, 
after reading Lardner's arguments, I must say, that 
they appear to me to have no high degree of plausi- 
bility. 

That Cerinthus lived in the time of the apostle 
John, and was known to him, is evident from another 
testimony of Iren^us, which has been often quoted. 
It is a story, which, lie says, soma persons in his time 
had from Polycarp, the disciple of John ; which m 
as follows, "John going to a certain bath at Ephesus. 
and perceiving that Cerinthus, thai noted arch-heretic, 
was in the bath, immediately leaped but, and said. 



192 

Let us go home lest the bath should fall down upon 
us, having in it, such a heretic, as Cerinthus, that 
eoemy of truth." 

Augustine, moreover, asserts, " That John is the 
last of the evangelists." 

Chrysostom supposes that John did not write his 
gospel till after the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Paulinus says, "It had been handed down by 
tradition, that John survived all the other apostles, and 
wrote the last of the four evangelists, and so as to con- 
firm their most certain history." Again, he observes, 
" That in the beginning of John's gospel, all heretics 
are confuted." 

Cosm-as of Alexandria, informs us, "That when 
John dwelt at Ephesus, there were delivered to him by 
the faithful, the writings of the other three evangelists. 
Receiving them, he said, that what they had written 
was well written ; but some things weie omitted by 
them, which were needful to be related. And being 
desired by the faithful, he also published his writing, 
as a kind of supplement to the rest." 

Isidore of Seville, says, "That John wrote the last, 
in Asia." 

Tiieopylact computed, that John wrote about 
two and thirty years after Christ's Ascension. 

Euthymius, says, "That this gospel was not 
written until long after the destruction of Jerusalem." 

Nicephorus, "That John wrote last of all, about 
six and thirty years, after our Lord's ascension to 
Heaven." 

Having exhibited the testimonies of the ancients, it 
may not be amiss, to set down the opinions of some of 
the moderns, relative to the time when this gospel was 
written. 



193 

Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, Jones, and many 
others, agree that John wrote his gospel about the year 
of our Lord, 97. 

Wetstein thinks it might have been written about 
thirty-two years after the ascension. 

Basnage and Lampe are inclined to believe that it 
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Whiston and Lardner adopt the same opinion. 

The gospel of St. John is cited by Clement of 
Rome ; by Barnaeas; by Ignatius ; by Theophi- 
lus of Antioch ; by Iren^eus ; and by Clement of 
Alexandria, in more than forty instances. And by all 
*hose writers who lived with, or immediately after the 
apostles, this gospel is appealed to, as inspired Scrip- 
ture ; and the same is the fact, in regard to Origen, 
Jerome, Augustine, and all the Fathers who came 
after this period. Nearly the whole of this gospel 
could be made up from the citations of the waiters of 
the first four centuries. It was never excluded from 
any church, or any catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, and therefore possesses every evidence of 
being Canonical, which any reasonable man could 
demand. 



R 



SECTION IX. 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES — LUKE THE AUTHOR 
-—CANONICAL AUTORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE 
FATHERS REJECTED ONLY BY HERETICS. 

That the Acts of the Apostles is the writing 
of Luke the Evangelist, is manifest from the dedication 
to Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gos- 
pel, which was first written. And it is also evident, 
from the uniform testimony of all antiquity; the fact 
never having been once questioned by any member of 
the catholic church. 

But it is pleasant to read the explicit testimonies of 
of the Fathers to the sacred books of the New Testa- 
ment: I will, therefore, bring forward the most im- 
portant. 

Irenjeus repeatedly cites passages from this book, 
saying, " Luke, the disciple and follower of Paul, says 
thus." "Luke, the inseparable companion and fellow 
laborer of Paul, wrote thus." He takes particular 
notice of Luke's using the first person plural, "we 
endeavored — we came — we went — we sat down— 
we spoke," &c. ; and enters into some discussion 
to prove " Luke's fitness for writing a just and true 
history." 

In another place he shows. " That St. Luke's Acts 
of the Apostles ought to be equally received with hi* 



195 

gospel ; for that in them he has carefully delivered 
to us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for sal- 
vation/' Again he says, ''Pauls account of his 
going to Jerusalem, exactly agrees with Luke's, in 
the Acts." 

Clemens Alexandrinus, citing Paul's speech at 
Athens, introduces it thus, il So Luke, in the Acts of 
the Apostles, relates." 

Tertullian cites several passages out of the Acts 
of the Aposiles, which he calls, Ci Cjmmsn'ariiis 
LnccE, The Commentary of Luke. 

Origen ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. 

Eusebius says, '-Luke has left us two inspired 
volumes, The Gospel, and the Acts." 

Jerome expressly asserts, " That the Acts was 
the composition of Luke." "• 

The Syriac Version of the New Testament, ascribes 
the Acts to Luke ; and in some very ancient Manu- 
scripts of the New Testament, his name is prefixed to 
this book. 

To this uniform body of ancient testimony, there is 
nothing which can be objected, except the author of 
the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to Athanasius, 
says, M Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but 
Luke wrote them." But if this were true, it would 
not in the least detract from the authority of (he book, 
but rather increase it. One testimony, however, can 
be of no avail against so many ; and we know, that 
Luke knew most of the facts recorded in this book, by 
his own personal observation, and needed no one to 
dictate them to him. Besides, Peter was not an eye- 
witness of the greater number of the facts, related in 
this book,. 



196 

The time when the Acts of the Apostles was 
written, may be determined pretty accurately, by the 
Lime when the history which it contains terminates ; 
that is about A. D. 62 ; for, no doubt, he began to 
write soon after he left Rome. 

That the acts of the apostles is of Canonical autho- 
rity, is proved from its having a place in all the 
ancient catalogues of the books of the New Testa- 
ment. 

The same is evinced by the numerous citations 
from this book, by the early Fathers ; who explicitly 
appeal to it, as of divine authority — as an inspired 
book. 

It is plainly referred to in more instances than 
one, by Clement of Rome, the fellow-laborer ^ of 
Paul. 

Polycarp, the disciple of John, also cites a passage 
from the Acts, in his epistle to the Philippians. 

It is cited by Justin Martyr in his Exhortation 
to the Greeks. 

It is distinctly cited by Iren^eus more than thirty 
times, in some of which instances it is expressly called 
Scripture ; and the credit and authority of the 
book are largely discussed in his work against He- 
retics. 

The citations of TertulliaN; from this book, are^ 
too numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it 
expressly under the name of Scripture ; " Which 
part of Scripture*" says he, "they who do not re- 
ceive, must deny the descent of the Holy Ghost,. 
and be ignorant of the infant state of the Christian 
Church."* 



* De Preschntioiie. 



197 

This book was also constantly read as Scripture, 
in the weekly assemblies of Christians all over the 
world . 

From the testimonies adduced above, it will appear, 
wilh convincing evidence, how unfounded is the opi- 
nion of some learned men, that the Acts, in the 
early period of the Church, was very little known, 
comparatively, and very little esteemed. Tins opinion 
has been favored by such men as Father Simon, and 
Dr. Mill; and has no other foundation than a passage 
in the Prolegomena to the Acts, ascribed to Chry- 
sostom, the genuineness of which is very doubtful. 
But if Chrysostom was the author of this passage, 
how little can it weigh against such a host of witnesses? 
The passage referred to, is, u This book is not so 
much as known to many : they know neither the 
book, nor by whom it was written.*' Now, the same 
might be asserted, respecting all the books in the 
Canon. There are many persons ignorant of what 
they contain,, and unacquired with their object. But 
there is no need to dwell longer on this objection. 

The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, has an 
indisputable claim to a place in the sacred Canon.' No 
better, or stronger evidence, can be desired. It is true, 
that some of the earliest heretics did not receive this 
book as Canonical. Tertullian informs us, that it 
was rejected by Cerdo, the master of Marcion, and 
some others whom he does not name, but whom he 
refutes. 

Philastrius informs us, that the Corinthians did 
not receive this book. 

And Augustine tells us, that the Manichees did 
not, because they considered Manes to be the Paraclete, 

b 2 



promised by the Saviour • but in the Acts, it is de- 
clared to have been the Holy Ghost which descended, 
on the apostles, on the day of Pentecost. 

"But," says Father Simon, "let us leave these en- 
thusiasts, who had no other reason for rejecting the 
books received by the whole church, except that they 
did not suit with the idea which they had formed of 
the Christian religion.' 1 



SECTION X. 

TESTIMONIES TO THE CAONICAL AUTHORITY OF" 
THE FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL. 

On the subject of Paul's Epistles, there is a universal 
consent among the ancients, except as it relates to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews : which having been published 
without the apostle's name and usual salutation, many 
conjectured that it was the production of another per- 
son : and while some ascribed it to Barnabas, others 
thought that either Clement, or Luke, was the writer. 
There seems to have been a difference between the 
eastern and western churches on this subject ; for the 
Greeks appear to have entertained no doubts in regard 
to Paul's being the author of this Epistle: it was only 
among the Latins^ that its genuineness was a matter 
of uncertainty. And the most learned among these 
adopted the opinion, that it was the production of Paul i 
and, by degrees, its authority was fully established in 
the west, as well as the east. The true state of the 
case will, however, appear more clearly, by citing the 
testimonies of the Fathers, than by any general repre- 
sentation. 

Although Clement^ the fellow-laborer of Paul> 
frequently cites passages from the gospels and epistles, 
yet he never expressly mentions any book of the New 
Testament, except Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthi- 



200 

ans ; to whom also Clement's Epistle was addressed. 
His words are, u Take into your hands the Epistle 
of blessed Paul, the apostle. What did he at first write 
to you, in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he did, 
by the Spirit, admonish you, concerning himself, and 
Cephas, and A polios, because that even then you did 
form parties/' There are in the Epistle of Ciementy. 
many other passages, in which the words of Paul are 
cited, but this is the only one in which his name is 
mentioned. 

HermaSj and Ignatius also, often quote the words 
of Paul's Epistles, but the book from which they are 
taken, is not designated. 

Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John,, and 
bishop of Smyrna, who suffered martyrdom in extreme 
old age, about the middle of the second century,. after 
sentence of death was pronounced upon him, wrote an 
Epistle to the Philippians, in which he makes express 
mention of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians — : 
* Do ye not know, that the saints shall judge the 
world,*' as Paul teaches." 

He also quotes a passage from the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, tinder the name of Holy Scripture. " For 
I trust," says he, a that ye are well exercised in the 
Holy Scripture — as in these Scriptures it is said, i Be 
ye angry and sin not: let not the sun go clown upon 
your wrath.'"f Polycarp, also cites passages from 
the second Epistle to the Corinthians; from the Epistle 
to the Galatians ; from the First and Second to the 
Thessalonians ; from the Epistles to the Hebrews; 
and from both the Epistles to Timothy; but, as is 

* See 1 Cor. vi. 2. f Ephes. iv. 26. 



201 

usual with the apostolical Fathers, he does not refer to 
the books or authors from which he makes his citations 

Justin Martyr quotes many passages in the very 
words of Paul, without mentioning his name. But 
Iren^eus distinctly, and frequently quotes thirteen of 
Paul's Epistles. He takes nothing, indeed, from the 
short Epistle to Philemon, which can easily be ac- 
counted for, by the brevity of this letter, and the special 
object which the apostle had in view in penning it. 

It would fill a large space, to put down all the 
passages cited by Ireneeus from the Epistles of Paul- 
Let it suffice to give one from each : — " This same 
thing Paul has explained, writing to the Romans, 

• Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, separated to the 
gospel of God.'* And again, writing to the Romans 
concerning Israel, he says, ' Whose are the Fathers, ami 
of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God 
over all, blessed for evermore.' "t " This also Paul 
manifestly shews, in his Epistle to the Corinthkns ? 
saying, 'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were 
under the cloud.'t Paul, in his second epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, says, 'In whom the God of this world hath 
blinded the eyes of them that believe not.' "§ " The 
apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians. 

• Wherefore then serveth the lav/ of works ? it w r as 
added until the seed should couie > to whom the pro- 
mise was made.' "|| " As also the blessed Paul says, 
in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 'For we are members 
of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.' ""IT " As 

* Rom. i.l. f Rom. ix. 5. 

X 1 Cor. x. 1. $ 2 Cor. iv. 4. 

[] Gal. iii. 10. Y E.ph. v. 30.. 



202 

also Paul says to the Philippians, 'I am full, having 
received of Epaphroditus, the things which were sent 
from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice, 
acceptable, well pleasing to God.' "* u Again, Paul 
says, in his Epistle to the Colo?sians, 'Luke the 
beloved physician saluteth you.' "t " The apostle in 
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, says, 'And the 
God of peace sanctify you wholly .'"t "And again, 
in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, speaking 
of Antichrist, he says, 'And then shall that wicked 
one be revealed.' "§ In the beginning of his work 
against heresies, he says, " Whereas some having 
rejected the truth, bringing in lying words, and ' vain 
genealogies, rather than godly edifying, which is in 
faith ,'il as sailh the apostle." This Epistle is often 
quoted by Xreneeus, in the work above mentioned. 
Speaking of Linus, bishop of Rome, he says, " Of this 
Linus, Paul makes mention in his Epistle to Timothy, 
'Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus.' "% 
"As Paul says, 'A man that is an herelic after the 
first and second admonition, reject.' "** Thus, we 
have seen, that Irenceus, who lived in the age imme- 
diately succeeding that in which Paul lived and wrote, 
has borne explicit testimony to all the epistles of that 
apostle, which have his name prefixed, except the 
short Epistle to Philemon, from which, it is probable, 
he had no occasion (o take any authorities, as it » 
very concise, and addressed to a friend on a particular 
subject, in which Paul felt deeply interested. 



* Phil. iv. 13. f Col. iv. 14. 

I 1 Thjess. v. 23. $ 2 Thess. xi. 8. 

J) 1 Tim. i. 4. f 2 Tim. i'fS 2J. 
** Tit. hi. 1.0. 



203 

As to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is anony- 
mous, there is ample evidence, that Ihen^eus was 
acquainted with it; but it is doubtful whether he 
esteemed it to be the production of Paul, or some other 
person. As he resided in France, if, is Very possible, that 
he participated in the prejudice of the western church 
on this point. Eusebius informs us, that he had 
seen a work of Iren^eus, which has not reached our 
times, in which he cites passages from the epistle to the 1 
Hebrews ; but he does not say, that he quoted them' 
as Paul's. And in his works, which are siili extant, 1 
there are several passages cited from this epistle, but 
without direct reference to the source whence they 
were derived. 

Athenagoras quotes from several of Paul's epis- 
tles ; but, as has been seen to be the custom of the 
early Fathers, he commonly uses the words, without 
informing the reader, from what author they were 
borrowed. There is, however, a passage in which 
:ie refers to both the First and Second epistles to the 
Corinthians, as being the production of the apostle 
Paul. " It is manifest, therefore," says^ he, "that 
according to the apostle, ' This corruptible and dissi- 
pated must put on incorruplion, that the dead being 
raised up, and the separated and even consumed parts 
3eing again united, every one may receive justly, the 
things he hath done in the body, whether they be 
good or bad.'"* 

Clemekt of Alexandria, abounds in quotations 
from Paul's epistles; a few of which will be sufficient 
for our purpose. " The apostle, in the epistle to the 
Romans, says, ' Behold, therefore, the goodness and 



* 1 Cor. xv. 54. 2 Cor. v. 10. 



204 

severity of God.' " " The blessed Paul, in the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, says, 'Brethren, be not 
children in understanding; howbeit, in malice, be ye 
children, but in understanding be ^e men. 5 "* He has 
also many quotations from the Second to the Corin- 
thians — " The apostle," says he, " calls the common 
doctrine of the Faith, c a Savour of knowledge,'! in 
the second to the Corinthians." Ci Hence, also, Paul 
gays, l Having these promises, dearly beloved, let us 
cleanse our hearts from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness, in the fear of God.' W J 
" Whereupon Paul, also writing to the Galatians, says, 
*My little children, of whom I travail in birth again 
until Christ be formed in you.' "§ 

"Whereupon the blessed apostle says, 'I testify in 
the Lord that ye walk not as other Gentiles walk.'t! 
Again, 'submitting yourselves one to another in the 
fear of God.' " He quotes part of the First hqd Second 
chapters of the epistle to the Philippians expressly ; 
and in another place he quotes the same epistle, after 
this manner: "The apostle of the Lord also exhorting 
the Macedonians, says, 'the Lord is at hand, take heed 
that we be not found empty.' " 

Clement, also, quotes the epistle to the Co!ossians 5 
and the epistles to the Thessalonians. From the First 
epistle to Timothy, he cites this passage, "O Timothy, 
keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding 
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, 
falsely so called, which some preferring, have erred 



* 1 Cor. xiv. 20. f 2 Cor. ii. 14. 

| 2 Cor. vii. 1. $ Gal. iv. 19, 

|j Eph. iv. 17,18* 1 Ephv. 21. 
f* Philip, iv. 5. 



205 

concerning the faith.' 5 * On which he observes, "Here 
tics confuted by this saying, reject both epistles to 
Timothy." The epistle to Titus, is also quoted several 
times; and he remarks, in one place, "that Paul 
had cited Epimenides, the Cretan, in his Epistle to 
Titus, after this manner, 'One of themselves, a poet 
of their own, said, the Cretans are always liars-.' "t 
The epistle to the Hebrews is also distinctly quoted, 
and is ascribed to Paul as its author. "Wherefore, 
writing to the Hebrews, who were declining from the 
faith to the law, Paul says, 'Have ye need that any 
teach you again, which be the first principles of the 
oracles of God, and are become such, as have need of 
•friilk, and not of strong meat.' "J 

Tertullian frequently, and expressly, quotes 
most of Paul's epistles. In one place, he says, "I will 
therefore, by no means say, God, nor Lord, but I will 
follow the apostles; so that if the Father and the Son 
are mentioned together, I will say, God the Father, 
and Jer*s Christ the Lord. But when I mention 
Christ unly, I will call him God, as the apostle does, 
'Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God blessed 
for evermore.' "§ 

Paul, in his First epistle to the Corinthians, speaks 
of those, who doubted, or denied the resurrection. 

In his Treatise on Monogamy, he computes, that it 
was about one hundred and sixty years from Paul's 
writing this epistle, to the time when he wrote. "In 
the Second epistle to the Corinthians, they suppose the 
apostle Paul to have forgiven the same fornicator, who 

* 1 Tim. vi. 20,21. | Tit.i. 12, 13. 

t Heb. v. 12. $ Rom. ix. 5. 



206 

in the First, he declared, ought to be delivered to 
Satan for the destruction of the flesh." 

" But of this, no more need be said, if it be the same 
Paul, who, writing to the Galatians, reckons heresy 
among the works of the flesh; and who directs Titus 
to reject a man that is a heretic, after the first admoni- 
tion, ' knowing that he that is such is subverted and 
sinneth, being condemned of himself.' n 

"I pass," says he, "to another epistle, which we 
have inscribed to the Ephesians; but the heretics, to 
the Laodiceans." Again, " According to the true testi- 
mony of the church, we suppose this epistle to have 
been sent to the Ephesians, and not to the Laodiceans; 
but Marcion has endeavored to alter this inscription, 
upon pretence of having made a more diligent search 
iato this matter. But the inscriptions are of no impor- 
tance, for the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to 
some." 

Speaking of the Christian's hope, he says, " Of 
which hope and expeciation, Paul to the Galatians 
says, 'For we through the spirit wait for the hope of 
righteousness by faith.' He dees net gay we have 
obtained it, but he speaks of the hope of the righteous- 
ness of God, in the day of judgment, when our reward 
shall be decided. Of which being in suspense, when 
he wrote to the Philippians, he said, 'If by any means, 
I might attain unto the resuirection of the dead ; not 
as though I had already attained, or were already 
perfect.'* The apostle, writing to the Colossians, 
expressly cautions against philosophy, 'Beware lesf 
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, 
after the tradition of men, and not after the instruction 

* Phil. iii. 11, 12. 



207 

of the Spirit.'"* "And in the epistle to the Thessalo 
nians, the apostle adds, "But of the times and the 
seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto 
you. For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of 
the Lord so coraeth as a thief in the night • "t " And 
in his second Epistle to the same persons, he writes 
with greater solicitude: 'But I beseech you, brethren, 
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye be 
not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled.' n + "And 
this word, Paul has used in writing to Timothy, ' O 
Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust. "§ 

That remarkable passage of Tertullian, in which 
he is supposed to refer to the existing autographs of 
the Epistles of Paul, although referred to already, may 
with propriety be here introduced. "Well," says he, 
"if you be willing to exercise your curiosity profitably, 
in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolical 
churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still 
preside, in which their very authentic letters (Authen- 
ticae Literas) are recited, sending forth the voice, and 
representing the countenance of each one of them. la 
Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are 
not far from Macedonia : — you have Philippi ; — you 
have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia; — you 
have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have 
Rome, from whence also we may be easily satisfied." 

There are three opinions respecting the meaning of 
ihis phrase Authenticce Liter re ; authentic letters; 
the first is, that it signifies the original manuscripts of 
the apostles — the autographs which were sent severally 



* Col. ii. 3. f i Thes. v. 1—3. 

| 2 Thes. ii. 1,2, M Tim. vi. 2Q, 



208 

to the churches named, to all of which Paul addressed 
epistles; the second opinion is, that Tertullian meant 
to refer his readers to the original Greek of these epis- 
tles, which they had been accustomed to read in 
a Latin version; and the third is, that this phrase 
means, well authenticated letters ; epistles, which, by 
application to these churches, could: be proved to be 
genuine writings of the apostles. 

Now, that the first of these is the true sense of Ter- 
iullian's words, will, I think, appear very probable, if 
we consider,, that if those autographs were preserved; 
even with common care, they would have been extant 
in the time of Tertullian, who reckons only 160 years 
from the time of Paul's writing to his own time. 

And again, unless he meant this, there is no reason 
why he should direce his readers only to those cities 
which had received epistles : for doubtless many other 
churches, which might be more accessible, had au- 
thentic copies, in the Greek language. Such copies 
undoubtedly existed in Africa, where Tertullian lived. 
They need not, however, have been directed to go to 
Rome, or Corinth, or Ephesus, or Philippi, or Thessa- 
lonica, to see the epistles of Paul in Greek. 

Neither was it, necessary to take a journey to these 
cities to be fully convinced, that the letters which had 
been received by them, were genuine; for the evidence 
of this fact was not confined to these distinguished 
places, but was diffused all over the Christian world. 
From these considerations, I conclude, that in Ter- 
tullian's time, these churches had in poesession, and 
preserved with care, the identical epestles sent to them 
by Paul. This sense is confirmed, by what he says. 
of their being able to hear the voice, and behold the 
countenance of the apostles, and see the very seats on 



209 

which they had been accustomed to sit when they 
presided in the church. These seats were still occu- 
pied by the bishops, and seemed to preside, as they 
were venerable from having been once occupied by the 
apostles. 

Tertullian was acquainted with the epistle to the 
Hebrews, for he quotes several passages from the sixth 
chapter, but he ascribes it to Barnabas, and not to 
Paul. In this opinion, I believe, he is singular. 

Origen, quotes Paul's epistles, as expressly and 
frequently, as is done by almost any modern writer. 
To transcribe all (he passages cited by him, would be 
to put down a large portion of the writings of this 
apostle. A few instances will be sufficient. 

In one passage, in his work against Celsus, he men- 
tions several of Paul's epistles together, in the following 
manner — " Do you, first of all, explain the epistles of 
him who says these things, and having diligently 
read, and attended to the sense of the words there 
used, particularly in that to the Ephesians ; to the 
Thessalonians; to the Philippians; to the Romans, 
&c." The epistle to the Ephesians, is elsewhere 
quoted by Origen, with the inscription which it now 
bears. 

After employing an argument founded on a passage 
quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews, he observes: 
"But possibly someone, pressed with this argument,, 
will take refuge in the opinion of those who reject this 
epistle, as not written by Paul." In answer to such, 
we intend to write a distinct discourse, to prove this to 
be an Epistle of Paul." In his citations of this epistle, 
therefore, he constantly ascribes it to Paul, in such ex* 
pressions as these, "Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews,** 
"In the epistle to the Hebrews, the same Paul gays," 

s 2 



210 

But Origen, not only expresses his own opinion on 
this subject, but asserts, that by the tradition received 
by the ancients, it was ascribed to Paul. His words 
are, "For it is not without reason, that the ancients 
have handed it down to us as Paul's."' Now, when 
we take into view that Origen lived within one hun- 
dred years of the time of the apostles, and that he was 
a person of most extraordinary learning, and that he 
had travelled much through different countries, his 
testimony on this point is of great w T eight : especially, 
since his opinion is founded on the testimony of the 
ancients, by whom he must mean the contemporaries 
of the apostles. At the same time, however, he men- 
tions, that some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Cle- 
ment of Rome. 

Cyprian, often quotes the epistles of Paul. u Ac- 
cording," says he, "to what the blessed apastle wrote 
in his epistle to the Romans, 'Every one shall give 
account of himself to God, therefore, let us not judge 
one another,' "* In his First book of Testimonies, he 
says, " In the First epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 
it is said, 'Moreover, brethren, I would not ye should 
be ignorant, li3w that all our Fathers were baptized 
unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea.'t Like wise j. 
in the Second epistle to the Corinthians, it is written, 
1 Their minds were blinded until this day.'J In like man- 
ner, blessed Paul, by the inspiration of the Lord, says, 
4 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower, minister 
bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and 
increase the fruits of your righteousness, that ye maybe 
enriched in all things.'§ Likewise Paul to the Galatians, 

* Rom. xlv. 12. f 1 Cor. x. 1. 

I 2 Cor. iii. 15. * 2 Cor. ix. 10, 



211 

says. 'When the fulness of time was come, God sent 
forth his Son. made of a woman/ r '* 

Cyprian expressly quotes (he epistle to the Ephe- 
sians ? under that title. "But the apostle Paul, speak- 
ing of the same thing more clearly and plainly, writes 
to the Ephesians, and says. 'Christ loved the churchy 
and gave himself for it. that he might sanctify and 
cleanse it. with the washing of water. t So also. Paul to 
the Philippian?, says, 'Who being appointed in the form 
of God. did not earnestly affect to be equal with God. 
but made himself of no reputation, taking on him the 
form of a servant : and being made in the likeness of 
man, and found in fashion as a man. he humbled 
himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death 
of the cross/* In the epistle of Paul to the Colossians r 
it is written, ' Continue in prayer, watching in the 
Jame.H Likewise, the blessed apostle Paul, full of the 
Holy Ghost, sent to call and convert the Gentiles, 
warns and teaches, ' Beware lest any man spoil you 
through philosophy, &c.' n He also quotes both the 
epistles to the Thessalonians. In his book of Testimo- 
nies, he says, u If the apostle Paul, writing to Timothy. 
said, ' Let no man dispise thy youlh,'| much more may 
it be said of you and your colleagues. 'Let no man 
dispise thy age.' " "Therefore the apostle writes to 
Timothy, and exhorts, ' that a bishop should not strive, 
but be gentle, and apt to teach.*!! These two Epistles 
are elsewhere quoted distinctly, as the First and Se- 
cond <o Timothy. He also quotes from the Epistle to 



* Gal. iv. 5. f Ephes. v. 25^ 26. 

t Phillip, ii. 6—8. $ Co], ii. 8. vi. 2. 

|| 1 Tim. iv. 12. IT 2 Tim. ii. 24. 



212 

Titus, the passage, " A man that is an heretic after 
the first and second admonition, reject."* 

Cyprian no where quotes the Epistle to the He- 
brews. It is probable, therefore, that he, like some 
others of the Latin Fathers, did not believe it to be 
Paul's, cr was doubtful respecting it. 

Neither does he cite the Epistle to Philemon; of 
this no other reason need be sought, but its contents 
and brevity. How many Christian authors have 
written volumes, without any citation of that Epistle. 

Victorinus, who lived near the close of the third 
century, often quotes Paul's Epistles; and among the 
rest, he cites the epistle to the Hebrews, which he 
seems to have believed to be the production of Paul. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, also a contemporary of 
Origen, and a man of great, learning, in the few 7 frag- 
ments of his works which remain, often refers to Paul's 
Epistles. 

Novatus, presbyter of the church of Rome, who 
flourished about the middle of the third century, ex- 
pressly cites from the Epistle to the Romans, that 
famous testimony to Christ's divinity, so often quoted 
by the Fathers, " Whose are the Fathers, of whom is 
Christ according to the flesh, who is over ail, God 
blessed forever. 77 And it deserves to be recollected, 
that although so many, beginning with Irenseus, have 
cited this passage, yet none of them appear to have 
thought the w-ords capable of any other meaning, 
than the plain, obvious sense, which strikes the reader 
at first. That it was a mere exclamation of praise, 
eeems never to have entered their minds. Novatus 
also quotes the First and Second Epistles to the Corin- 

* Tit. iii. 10. 



213 

thians, the Epistles the Galatians, to the Ephesians t 
and to the Philippians. From this last Epistle, he 
cites these remarkable words : " Who being in the form 
of God, 5 '* and interprets the following clause in exact 
accordance with another of the Fathers, " did not ear- 
nestly seek to be like God, or to be equal with God." 
He quotes from the Epistle to the Colossians, these 
words : " Whether they be thrones or dominions, or 
principalities, or powers, things visible and invisible, 
by him all things consist."! The Epistles to Timo- 
thy, and to Titus, are also cited by this author. 

Methodius, who lived in the latter part of the 
third century, quotes Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 
First and Second to the Corinthians, To the Galatians, 
To the Ephesians, To the Philippians, To trie Colos- 
sians, The First to the Thessaionians, and the First 
to Timothy. He has also taken several passages from 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and quotes it in such a 
manner, as to render it highly probable, that he 
esteemed Mi to be a part of Sacred Scripture, and 
ascribed it to Paul. 

Eusebius, the learned historian, undoubtedly re- 
ceived thirteen Epistles to Paul as genuine; and he 
seems to have entertained no doubt respecting the 
Canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
but he sometimes expresses himself doubtfully of its 
author, while at other times he quotes it as Paul's, 
without any apparent hesitation. In speaking of the 
universally acknowledged Epistle of Clement of Rome, 
he observes: "In which, inserting many sentiments of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also using some of the 
very words of it, he plainly manifests that Epistle to 

* Phil. ii. 6. f Col. i. 16 ? 17. 



214 

be no. modern writing. And hence it has, not without 
reason, been reckoned among the other writings of the 
apostle ; for Paul having written to the Hebrews in 
their own language, some think that the Evangelist 
Luke, others, that this very Clement translated it ; 
which last is the more probable of the two, there being 
a resemblance between the style of the epistle of 
Clement, and that to the Hebrews ; nor are the senti- 
ments of these two writings very different." In his 
Ecclesiastical History, he speaks, u Of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, and divers other Epistles of Paul." And 
Theodoret positively asserts, that Eusebius received 
this Epistle as Paul's, and that he manifested that ed\ 
the ancients, almost, were of the same opinion. It 
seems, from these facts, that in the time of Eusebius, 
the churches with which he was acquainted, did 
generally receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the 
writing of Paul. 

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, received fourteen epistles 
of Paul. 

Jerome received, as undoubted, all Paul's epistle3, 
except that to the Hebrews, concerning which he says, 
hi his letter to Evangelius, "That all the Greeks and 
eome of the Latins received this Epistle." 

And in his letter to Dardanus, "That it was not 
only received, as Paul's, by all the churches of the east, 
in his time, but by all the Ecclesiastical writers in for- 
mer times, though many ascribe it to Barnabas, or 
Clement." He also says, " that it was daily read in 
the churches ; and if the Latins did not receive this 
epistle, as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, 
he received both ; not being so much influenced by 
present times, as the judgment of ancient writers, who 
quote both ; and that not as they quote apocryphal 



215 

books, and even Heathen writings, but as Canonical 
and Ecclesiastical." 

Jerome, in speaking of the writings of Paul, gives 
the following very full and satisfactory testimony : 
(i He wrote,*' says he, " nine Epistles to seven churches. 
To the Romans, one ; to the Corinthians, two ; to the 
Galatians, one; to the Philippians, one; to the Co- 
lossians, one; to the Thessaionians, two; to the 
Ephesians, one: to Timothy, two ; to Titus, one ; to 
Philemon, one. But the Epistle called, to the Hebreios, 
is not thought to be his, because of the difference of 
argument and style; but rather Barn abas's, as Ter- 
tullian thought ; or Luke's, according to some others; 
or Clement's, who was afterwards bishop of Rome ; 
who being much with Paul, clothed and adorned Paul's 
sense in his own language. Or if it be Paul's, he 
might decline putting his name to it in the inscription, 
for fear of offending the Jews. Moreover, he wrote as 
a Hebrew to the Hebrews, it being Ins own language ; 
whence it came to pass, that being translated, it has 
more elegance in the Greek, than his other Epistles. 
This they say is the reason of its differing from Paul's 
ether writings. There is also an Epistle to the Lao- 
diceans, but it is rejected by every body." Jerome 
commonly quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the 
apostle Paul's; and, as we have seen before, this was 
his prevailing opinion, which is not contradicted in the 
long passage just cited. 

Augustine; received fourteen epistles of Paul, the 
last of which, in his catalogue, is, the Epistle to the He- 
brews ; he was aware, however, that some in his time 
thought it of doubtful authority, " However, 1 ' says he, "I 
am inclined to follow the opinion of the churches of the 
East, who receive it among the Canonical Scriptures/' 



216 

The time when each of these epistles was written* 
cannot be ascertained with any exactness. It is not 
even agreed among the learned, which was the first of 
Paul's epistles. Generally, indeed, il has been thought 
that the two epistles to the Thessalonians, were compo- 
sed earlier than the others ; but, of late, some learned 
men have given precedence to the epistle to the Gala- 
tians. And this opinion is not altogether confined to 
the moderns, for Tertullian mentions this epistle as 
among the first of Paul's writings. But the more 
common opinion is, that it was written during the long 
abode of this apostle at Corinth. Among the advocates 
of this opinion, we find L'Enfant, Beausobre, Lardner, 
&c. ; Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and Wall ; suppose, that 
it was written at Ephesus. These last, together with 
Fabricius and Mill, place the date of this epistle to the 
Galatians, after that to the Romans. 

Macknight maintains, that it was written from Ami- 
och, after the Council of Jerusalem ; and offers in sup- 
port of his opinion ; several plausible arguments, which, 
if they do not prove all that he wishes, seem to render 
it probable that the time of this epistle being written was 
soon after the Council of Jerusalem. 

Semler, however, is of opinion that this epistle was 
written prior to the Council of Jerusalem. 

From these various opinions, it is sufficiently evident, 
that the precise date of the epistle to the Galatians 
cannot be ascertained. If we take the opinion of those 
who give the earliest date, the time of writing will not 
be later than A. D. 4,7. But if we receive as more proba- 
ble the opinions of those who think that it was written 
after the Council of Jerusalem, we shall bring it down 
to the year 50; while according to the opinion more 
commonly adopted, its date will be A. D. 52, or 53. 



217 

And if we prefer the opinions of those who assign 
the latest date to this epistle, we shall bring it down 
several years later, and instead of giving it the first 
place, will give it the ninth or tenth. 

There seem to be better data for determining, that 
the first epistle to the Thessalonians, was written 
from Corinth, about the year 51 ; and the second epis- 
tle to the Thessalonians, was probably written a few 
months afterwards, from the same place. 

Michaelis and Dr. Hales unite, in giving the next 
place, in the order of time, to the epistle to Titus. 
Lardner, however, places it considerably later ; and 
Paley assigns to it a date, later than any other au- 
thor. On this subject, there is little else than conjec- 
ture, to guide us. 

The year in which this epistle was written, accord- 
ing to Michaelis and Hales, was 53 ; according to 
Lardner, 56 ; according to Barrington, 57 ; and ac- 
cording to Whitby, Pearson, and Paley, 65. 

The epistle next in order, is the First to the Corin- 
thians, the date of which can be determined with 
considerable precision, from the epistle itself. " 1 will 
tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost 11 These words teach 
where this epistle was written, and by a comparison 
with other passages of Scripture, that it was penned 
near the close of Paul's long residence at Ephesus. 
from which place he departed, about A. D. 57. This 
then is the proper date of this epistle. 

The First epistle to Timothy will stand next, if we 
follow the opinion most commonly entertained by 
learned men; and its date will be, A. D. 57, or A 



1 Cor. xvi. 8. 
T 



218 



D. 58. This opinion is supported by the authority of 
Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Capellus, Blondel, 
Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, Benson, 
Barrington, Michaelis, Doddridge, and others. But 
Pearson, Rosenmuller, Macknight, Paley, Tomline, 
&c. place it as low as the year of our Lord 64, or 
6b. 

The Second epistle to the Corinthians was written, 
probably, about a year after the First, which will 
bring it to A. D. 58. 

In the same year, it is thought, that Paul wrote his 
very important epistle to the Romans. On this point, 
however, there is some diversity of opinion. But 
the epistle itself contains internal evidence that it was 
written at Corinth, when the apostle was preparing 
to take the contributions of the churches to Jeru- 
salem. 

The date of the epistles to the Ephesians, to the 
Philippians, and to the Colossians, can be ascertained 
pretty nearly, from the circumstance, that Paul was 
prisoner at Rome, when they were written. The 
epistle to the Ephesians, may, with much probability, 
be referred to A. D. 61 ; the epistle to the Philippi- 
ans, to A. D. 62 ; and the epistle to the Colossians, 
to the same year. 

The short epistle to Philemon was written, as ap- 
pears by several coincidences, about the same time, 
as those just mentioned. 

The epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been 
written about the termination of Paul's first imprison- 
ment at Rome. Its date, therefore, may without 
danger of mistake, be referred to A. D. 62, or A. D. 
63. 



219 

J. D. Michaelis, who, as has been seen, has done 
much to unsettle the Canon of Scripture, by calling 
in question the genuineness of some of the books, as 
well as the inspiration of some of the writers, has, in 
an elaborate essay, (Vol. iv.) endeavored to lessen 
the authority of this epistle. For an answer to the 
arguments of this learned, but sceptical Professor, I 
would refer the reader to Townsend's New Testa- 
ment, Arranged in Chronological and Historical 
Order. 

Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy seems to have 
been written during his second imprisonment at 
Rome, and shortly before his death, A. D. 66. 



SECTION XL 

CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPIS- 
TLES. 

The First epistle of Peter, and the First of John, 
are quoted by Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias, but 
not expressly, as the writings of these apostles. For 
the particular passages cited, the reader is referred 
to Lardner. 

Justin Martyr has a saying which is no where 
found in Scripture, except in the Second of Peter. 
It is, " That a day of the Lord is a thousand years" 

Diognetus quotes several passages from the First 
of Peter, and the First of John. 

Irejoeus quotes the First epistle of Peter, express- 
ly; "And Peter says, in his epistle, Whom having 
not seen, ye love" And from the Second, he takes 
the same passage, which has just been cited, as quo- 
ted by Justin Martyr. The First and Second of 
John are expressly quoted by this Father, for after 
citing his gospel, he goes on to say, " Wherefore also 
in his epistle, he says, Little children it is the last 
time" And again, "In the forementioned epistle, 
the Lord commands us to shun those persons, who 
bring false doctrine, saying, " Many deceivers are 
mtered into the world, who confess not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and 
an Antichrist Look to yourselves that ye lose not those 
things which ye have wrought" Now these words 



221 



are undoubtedly taken from John's Second epistle. 
Irenaeus seems, indeed, to quote them from the First, 
but this was probably a slip of the memory. 

Several passages out of the epistle of James, are 
also cited by this Father, but without any distinct 
reference to the source whence they are derived. 

Athenagoras, also, has some quotations which ap- 
pear to be from James, and Second Peter. 

Clement of Alexandria, often quotes First Peter; 
and sometimes Second' Peter. The First epistle of 
John is often cited by him. Jude also is quoted sev- 
eral times expressly, as, " Of these and the like here- 
tics, I think Jude spoke prophetically, when he said, 
" 1 will that ye should know, that God having saved 
the people out of Egypt" &c. He has a remark on 
Jude's modesty, that he did not style himself the 
brother of our Lord, although he was related to him, 
but begins his epistle, " Jude the servant of Jesus 
Christ, and brother of James" 

Tertullian, often quotes the First epistle of John ; 
but he has in none of his remaining writings cited 
any thing from James, Second Peter, or the Second 
of John. He has, however, one express quotation 
from Jude, " Hence it is," says he, " that Enoch is 
quoted by the apostle Jude." 

Origen, in his commentary on St. John's gospel, 
expressly quotes the epistle of James, in the following 
passage, " For though it be called faith, if it be with- 
out works, it is dead, as we read in the epistle as- 
cribed to James." This is the only passage in the 
remaining Greek works of this Father, where this 
book is quoted ; but in his Latin works, translated by 
Rufin, it is cited as the epistle of James, the apostle 

t2 



222 



mid brother of our Lord ; and as " Divine Scrip- 
ture," The First of Peter is often quoted expressly. 
In his book against Celsus, he says, " As it is said by 
Peter, " Ye as lively stones are built up a spiritual 
house" Again, " Peter in his Catholic epistle, says, 
"Put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit" 

According to Eusebius, Origen considered the 
Second of Peter as doubtful, and in his Greek works } 
there are no clear citations from it ; but there are 
found a few in his Latin works. 

In the passage preserved by Eusebius, he says, 
that some were doubtful, respecting the Second and 
Third of John, " but for my part, says he, " let them 
be granted to be his." 

Origen has cited several passages from Jude, 
which are found in no other part of scripture; and 
m one place remarks, " Jude wrote an epistle of few- 
lines indeed, but full of powerful words and heavenly 
grace, who at the beginning, says, Jude the servant 
of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" In another 
place, he shows, that some were doubtful of this 
epistle, for he says, " But if any one receives also the 
epistle of Jude, let him consider what will follow, 
from what is there said." This epistle is cited in his 
Latin w T orks also ; and several times, in a Latin epis- 
Me ascribed to Origen. 

Cyprian no where quotes the epistle of Jamefc ; but 
the First of Peter is often cited. Several times he 
speaks of it, as the epistle of Peter to the people of 
Pontus. He expressly ascribes it to " Peter the apos- 
tle." " the apostle of Christ," &c. 

The Second of Peter, he never quotes. The first 
of John is often quoted by Cyprian. " The apostle 



223 

John," says he, " mindful of this command, writes in 
this epistle, " Hereby we perceive that ice know Mm, for 
we keep his commandments. He that saith 1 know him, 
and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the 
truth is not in him." The Second and Third of John, 
he never mentions, nor the epistle of Jude. 

The opinion of Eusebius of Cesarasa, respecting 
the epistle of James, was, that it was written by one 
of Christ's disciples, by the name of James, but he 
makes three of that name. Although he admits, that 
the waiter of this epistle was the brother of our Lord, 
who was made the first bishop of Jerusalem ; yet 
he will not allow, that he w r as one of the Twelve. In 
his commentary on the Psalms, he says, "Is any 
among you afflicted ? let him pray. Is any merry ? let 
him sing psalms" as the sacred apostle says." In 
other parts of his w 7 orks, he speaks very doubtfully 
of this epistle, and in one passage, where he distri- 
butes the books into classes, he mentions it among 
the books which he calls spurious ; by which, how- 
ever, he only means, that it was not canonical. In his 
ecclesiastical history, he speaks of the epistles of Peter, 
in the following manner, " One epistle of Peter, called 
his First, is universally received. This the presby- 
ters of ancient times, have quoted in their writings, 
as undoubtedly genuine ; but that called his Second 
epistle, w T e have been informed, has not been received 
into the Testament. Nevertheless, it appearing to 
many to be useful, has been carefully studied with the 
other scriptures." And in another passage, he says, 
" That called the First of John and the First of Peter, 
are to be esteemed authentic. Of the controverted, 
yet well known or approved by the most, are. that 



224 

called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the 
Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John, 
whether they were written by the evangelist, or by 
another." 

Athanasius quotes the epistle of James, as written 
by the apostle James. The First epistle of Peter is 
frequently quoted by him ; and he also cites passages 
from the second epistle, and ascribes them to Peter. 
Both the first and second epistles of John, are dis- 
tinctly, and expressly quoted : the third is not men- 
tioned. He also, in two instances, cites the words of 
Jude. 

Jerome's testimony concerning the epistle of James, 
is full and explicit. His words are, " James, called 
the Lord's brother ; surnamed Justus, as some think 
son of Joseph, by a former wife ; but as I rather 
think, the son of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mo- 
ther, mentioned by John in his gospel, (soon after our 
Lord's passion ordained by the apostles bishop of 
Jerusalem) wrote but one epistle, which is among 
the Seven Catholic Epistles ; which too has been said 
to have been published by another in his name ; but 
gradually, in process of time, it has gained authority. 
This is he of whom Paul writes, in the epistle to the 
Galatians : and he is often mentioned in the Acts of 
the apostles ; and also several times in the gospel, 
called, according to the Hebrews lately translated 
by me into Greek and Latin." 

Augustine received all the Catholic Epistles. He 
quotes James as an apostle. He often cites both the 
epistles of Peter. He also refers to John's three epis- 
tles, and quotes Jude, and calls him an apostle. 



225 

In the works of Ephrem, the Syrian, who lived, and 
wrote voluminously, in the fourth century, there are 
express quotations from the epistle of James, from the 
Second of Peter, the Second and Third of John, and 
from Jude, as well as from those Catholic Epistles 
which were undisputed. 

Rufiiv received all the books as Canonical, which 
are now so esteemed by christians generally. 

Why these epistles have received the appellation 
of Catholic, various reasons have been assigned. 

Some have supposed that they were so called, be- 
cause they contain the one catholic doctrine which 
was delivered to the churches by the apostles of our 
Saviour, and which might be read by the universal 
church. 

Others are of opinion that they received this ap- 
pellation, because they w r ere not addressed to one 
person, or church, like the epistles of Paul, but to the 
Catholic church. This opinion seems not to be cor- 
rect, for some of them were written to the Christians 
of particular countries, and others to individuals. 

A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and 
adopted by Dr. Macknight, and which has some pro- 
bability, is, that the First of Peter, and First of John, 
being received by all Christians, obtained the name 
of Catholic, to distinguish them from those which at 
first were not universally received ; but, in process of 
time, these last, coming to be universally received, 
were put into the same class with the first, and the 
whole thenceforward had the appellation of Catholic 

This denomination is as old as the time of Euse- 
bius, and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called 
John's First epistle Catholic; and the same is done by 



226 



Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. The same appella- 
tion was given to the whole seven by Athanasius, 
Epiphanius, and Jerome. 

Of these, it is probable, that the epistle of James 
was first written, but at what precise time, cannot be 
determined. 

As there were two disciples of the name of James, 
it has been much disputed, to which of them this epis- 
tle should be attributed. Lardner and Macknight 
have rendered it exceedingly probable that this epis- 
tle was written by James the Less, who is supposed 
to have been related to our Lord, and who seems for 
a long time to have been the chief authority in the 
church at Jerusalem ; but Michaelis is of a different 
opinion, and says, that he sees " no reason for the as- 
sertion, that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the 
author of this epistle." But the reasons which he as- 
signs for his opinion, have very little weight. 

The date of this epistle may, with considerate pro- 
bability, be referred to the year 62; for it is supposed 
that James was put to death in the following year. 

Its Canonical authority and divine inspiration, al- 
though called in question by some, in ancient as well 
as modern times, ought to be considered as undoubt- 
ed. One strong evidence that it was thus received by 
early Christians, may be derived from the old Syriac 
version of the New Testament; which, while it leaves 
out several other books, contains this. 

It seems not to have been as well known in the 
western churches as most other books of Scripture ; 
but learned men have observed, that Clement of Rome 
has quoted it no less than four times ; and it is also 
quoted by Ignatius, in his genuine epistle to the Ephe- 



227 



sians ; and we have already shown, that it was re- 
ceived as the writing of the apostle James, by Ori- 
gen, Athanasius, and Jerome. 

The First epistle of Peter has ever been considered 
authentic, and has been cited by Clement of Rome, 
Poly carp, the Martyrs of Lyons, Theophilus Bishop 
of Antioch, Papias, Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, 
and Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting 
it is, what place we are to understand by Babylon, 
where Peter was when he wrote. On this subject, 
there are three opinions : the first, that by this name 
a place in Egypt is signified ; the second, that Baby- 
lon in Assyria, properly so called, is meant ; and the 
third, which is generally maintained by the Roman- 
ists, and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here call- 
ed Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood that 
this epistle was written from Rome. 

The time of its being written, w r as probably about 
the year of our Lord 65 or 66. 

The date of the epistle of Jude, may as well be 
placed about the same period, as at any other time, 
for we have no documents which can guide us to 
any certain decision. The objection to the Canonical 
authority of this epistle, derived from the author's 
having quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, is of 
no validity ; for the fact is, that Jude makes no men- 
tion of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there 
is no evidence that the apocryphal boojk of Enoch 
was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth 
from such a book, it argues no more against his inspi- 
ration, than Paul's quoting Epimenides does against 
his being an inspired man. 

The three epistles of John were probably written 



228 



about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been sup- 
posed that the Apocalypse was the last written book 
of the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the 
Three epistles of John were last written. — See Town- 
send's New Testament, vol. ii. 



SECTION XII. 

CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

Hermas gives many indications of having read the 
Revelation ; for he often imitates John's description 
of the New Jerusalem ; and sometimes borrows his 
very words. He speaks of the Book of Life, and of 
those whose names are written in it He speaks also 
of the Saints, whom he saw, being clothed in gar- 
ments white as snow. 

Papias also, doubtless, had seen the book of Reve- 
lation ; for some of his opinions were founded on a 
too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this 
book. But neither Papias nor Hermas, expressly cite 
the Revelation. 

Justin Martyr, is the first, who gives explicit tes- 
timony to the Apocalypse. His words are, " And a 
man from among us, by name John, one of the apos- 
tles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has 
prophesied, that the believers in our Christ, shall live 
a thousand years in Jerusalem ; and after that, shall 
be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and 
judgment of all men, together." 

In the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vi- 
enne, in France, which was written about the year 
of our Lord one hundred and eighty, there is one pas- 
sage cited from the book of Revelation : " For he 
was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ," "following 
the Lamb, whithersoever he goes" 



230 



IreiVjeus, expressly quotes the Revelation, and 
ascribes it to John, the apostle. And, in one place, 
he says, " It (the Revelation,) was seen no long time 
ago, in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." 
And in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks 
of the exact and ancient copies of this book ; which 
he says, " was confirmed, likewise, by the concurring 
testimony of those who had seen John." 

Theophilus of Antioch, also, as we are assured by 
Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of 
John, in his book against Hermogenes. And in his 
works, which are extant, there is one passage which 
shows, that he was acquainted with the Revelation. 
" This Eve," says he, " because she was deceived by 
the serpent — the evil demon, who is also called Sa- 
tan, who then spoke to her by the serpent — does not 
cease to accuse : this demon is also called, the Dra- 
gon." 

The Revelation of John, is often quoted by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, " Such 
an one, though here on earth, he be not honoured 
with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty 
thrones, judging the people, as John says, in the Re- 
velation." That Clement believed it to be the work 
of the apostle John, is manifest, because in another 
place, he expressly cites a passage, " As the words 
of an apostle;" and we have just seen that he ascribes 
the work to. John. 

Tertullian, cites many things from the Revela- 
tion of John ; and he seems to have entertained no 
doubt of its being the writing of the apostle John, as 
will appear by a few quotations : " John, in his Apo- 
calypse, is commanded to correct those who ate 



231 



things sacrificed to idols, and commit fornication." 
Again, " The apostle John, in the Apocalypse, de- 
scribes a sharp two-edged sword, coming out of the 
mouth of God." — " We have churches, disciples of 
John, for though Marcion rejects his Revelation, the 
succession of bishops, traced to the original, will as- 
sure us, that John is the author." And, in another 
place, he has a long quotation from the book of Re- 
velation. 

Hippolytus, who lived in the third century, and 
had great celebrity, both in the eastern and western 
churches, received the Revelation, as without doubt 
the production of the apostle John. Indeed, he seems 
to have written a comment on this book, for Jerome, 
in the list of his works, mentions one, " On the Reve- 
lation." 

Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that a no- 
ble monument was erected to him in the city of Rome, 
which, after lying for a long time buried, was dug 
up, near that city, A. D. 1551. His name, indeed, is 
not now on the monument, but it contains a catalogue 
of his works, several of which have the same titles as 
those ascribed to Hippolytus, by Jerome and Euse- 
bius ; together with others, not mentioned by them : 
among which is one, " Of the Gospel of John, and 
the Revelation." 

Origen- calls the writer of the Apocalypse, " evan- 
gelist and apostle ;" and, on account of the predic- 
tions which it contains, " Prophet" also. In his book 
against Celsus, he mentions, " John's Revelation, and 
divers other books of Scripture." 

It was Origen's intention to write a commentary 
on this book; but whether he ever carried his purpose 



2S2 



into execution, is unknown. Nothing of the kind has 
reached our times. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived about the mid- 
dle of the third century, and was one of the most 
learned men of his time, has entered into a more par- 
ticular discussion, of the Canonical authority of the 
book of Revelation, than any other ancient author. 
From what has been said by him, we learn, on what 
account it was, that this book, after having been uni- 
versally received by the earlier Fathers, fell, with 
some, into a certain degree of discredit. About this 
time, the Chiliasts, or Millenarians, who held that 
Christ would reign visibly on earth with his Saints 
for a thousand years during which period all man- 
ner of earthly and sensible pleasures would be enjoy- 
ed, made their appearance. This opinion they de- 
rived from a literal interpretation of some passages 
in the book of Revelation ; and as their error was 
very repugnant to the feelings of most of the Fathers, 
they were led to doubt of the authority, or to dispa- 
rage the value, of the book from which it was derived. 

The first rise of the Millenarians, of the grosser 
kind, seems to have been in the district of Arsinoe, in 
Egypt ; where one Nepos composed several works 
in defence of their doctrine; particularly, a book 
* Against the Allegorists." Dionysius took much 
pains with these errorists, and entered with them 
into a free and candid discussion of their tenets, and 
of the true meaning of the book of Revelation ; and 
had the satisfaction to reclaim a number of them from 
their erroneous opinions. His own opinion of the 
Revelation, he gives at large, and informs us, that 
sorhe who lived before his time, had utterly rejected 



233 



this book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus ; but, for his 
own part, he professes to believe, that it was written 
by an inspired man, whose name was John, but a 
different person from the apostle of that name ; for 
which opinion, he assigns several reasons, but none 
of much weight. His principal reason is, that the 
language of this book is different from that of the 
apostle John, in his other writings. To which Lard- 
ner judiciously answers, that supposing this to be the 
fact, it will not prove the point, for the style of pro- 
phecy is very different from the epistolary, or histo- 
rical style. But this laborious and learned collector 
of facts, denies that there is such a difference of style, 
as to lay a foundation for this opinion ; and, in con- 
firmation of his own opinion, he descends to particu- 
lars, and shows, that there are some striking points 
of resemblance between the language of the Apoca- 
lypse and the acknowledged writings of the apostle 
John. 

The opinion of those persons, who believed it to 
be the work of Cerinthus, is utterly without founda- 
tion ; for this book contains opinions expressly contra- 
ry to those maintained by this heretic ; and even on 
the subject of the millenium, his views did not coin- 
cide with those expressed in the Revelation. 

Caius seems to have been the only ancient author 
who attributed this book to Cerinthus, and to him Di- 
onysius probably referred, when he spoke of some, 
before his time, who held this opinion. 

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, received the book of 
Revelation as of Canonical authority, as appears by 
the manner in which he quotes it. " Hear," says he, 
" in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord, reproving 

u 2 



234 

such men as these, " Thou sayest 1 am rich and in- 
creased in goods, and have need of nothing, and know- 
est not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, 
and blind, and naked" 

Again, " So in the Holy Scriptures, by which the 
Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, is 
the harlot city described." 

Finally, " That waters signify people, the divine 
Scriptures show, in the Revelation." 

Victorinus, who lived towards the close of the 
third century, often cites the book of Revelation, and 
ascribes it to John the apostle, 

That Lactantius received this book, is manifest, 
because he has written much respecting the future 
destinies of the church, which is founded on the pro- 
phecies which it contains. 

Until the fourth century, then, it appears, that the 
Revelation was almost universally received ; not a 
writer of any credit calls it in question ; and but one 
hesitates about ascribing it to John the apostle ; but 
even he held it to be written by an inspired man. 
But, about the beginning of the fourth century, it be- 
gan to fall into discredit with some, on account of the 
mysterious nature of its contents, and the encourage- 
ment which it was supposed to give to the Chiliasts. 
Therefore Eusebius of Cesarsea, after giving a list of 
such books as were universally received, adds, " Af- 
ter these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the Reve- 
lation of John, concerning which we shall observe 
the different opinions, at a proper time." And again, 
" There are, concerning this book, different opinions." 

Rev. iii. 17. Rev. xvii. 1, 2, 3. 



235 

This is the first doubt expressed by any respecta- 
ble writer, concerning the Canonical authority of this 
book ; and Eusebius did not reject it, but would have 
it placed next after those which were received with 
universal consent. 

And, we find, at this very time, the most learned 
and judicious of the Fathers, received the Revelation, 
without scruple, and annexed it to their catalogues of 
the books of the New Testament. 

Thus, Athanasius, after giving an account of the 
twenty-two Canonical books of the Old Testament, 
proceeds to enumerate the books of the New Testa- 
ment, in the following manner, which he makes eight in 
number: — 1. Matthew's Gospel; 2. Mark's; 3. Luke's; 
4. John's; 5. The Acts; 6. The Catholic epistles; 
7. Paul's Fourteen epistles ; and, 8. The Revelations, 
given to John the evangelist and divine, in Patmos. 

Jerome, in giving an account of the writings of 
John the evangelist, speaks also of another John, call- 
ed the presbyter, to whom some ascribed the Second 
and Third Epistles, under the name of John. And 
we have already seen, that Dionysius of Alexandria 
ascribed the Revelation to another John. This opi- 
nion, we learn from Jerome, originated in the fact, 
that two monuments were found at Ephesus, each 
inscribed with the name, John; but he says, "Some 
think, that both the monuments are of John the evan- 
gelist." Then he proceeds to give some account of 
the Revelation. " Domitian," says he, " in the four- 
teenth year of his reign, raising the second persecu- 
tion after Nero, John was banished into the Isle of 
Patrnos, where he wrote the Revelation, which Jus- 
tin Martyr and Iren^us explain." 



236 



Augustine, also, received the book of Revelation, 
and quotes it very frequently. 

He ascribes it to the same John who wrote the 
gospel and the epistles. 

From the view which has been taken of the testi- 
monies in favour of the book of Revelation, I think it 
must appear manifest, to every candid reader, that 
few books in the New Testament have more com- 
plete evidence of Canonical authority. The only thing 
which requires explanation is, the omission of this 
book in so many of the catalogues of the Fathers, 
and of ancient councils. Owing to the mysterious 
nature of the contents of this book, and to the abuse 
of its prophecies, by the too literal construction of 
them by the Millenarians, it was judged expedient 
not to have this book read publicly in the churches. 
Now, the end of forming these catalogues was, to 
guide the people in reading the Scriptures ; and as it 
seems not to have been desired, that the people should 
read this mysterious book, it was omitted by many, 
in their catalogues. Still, however, a majority of 
them have it ; and some, who omitted it, are known 
to have received it as Canonical. 

This, also, will account for the fact, that many of 
the manuscripts of the New Testament are without 
the Revelation ; so that there are extant, compara- 
tively, few copies of this book. 

But the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypse 
stand on ground, which can never be shaken; and 
the internal evidence is strong in favour of a divine 
origin. There is a sublimity, purity, and consistency 
in it, which could not have proceeded from an im- 
postor. In addition to all which, we observe, tb* 4 Al 



237 

fulfilment of many of the predictions of this book is 
so remarkable, that to many learned men who have 
attended to this subject, the evidence from this source 
alone, is demonstrative of its divine origin. And 
there is every reason to believe, that in the revolution 
of events, this book which is now to many, sealed 
with seven seals, will be opened, and w T ill be so ex- 
plained, that all men will see and acknowledge, that 
it is indeed " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which 
God gave unto him, to show unto his servants, things 
which must shortly come to pass — and sent and signi- 
fied it by his angel, to his servant John ; who bare re- 
cord of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus 
Christ."* 

After having given a particular account of the 
several books of the New Testament, it may be use- 
ful to subjoin a few general remarks on the testimony 
exhibited. 

1. The writings of the apostles, from the time of 
their first publication, were distinguished by all Chris- 
tians from all other books. They were spoken of by 
the Fathers, " as Scripture ;" as " divine Scripture ;" 
as " inspired of the Lord :" as, " given by the in- 
spiration of the Holy Ghost." The only question 
ever agitated, respecting any of these books, was, 
whether they w r ere indeed, the productions of the 
apostles. When this was clear, no man disputed 
their divine authority ; or considered it lawful to dis- 
sent from their dictates. They were considered as 
occupying the same place, in regard to inspiration 

Rev. i. 1,2. 



238 

and authority, as the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment, and in imitation of this denomination, they 
were called the New Testament. The other names 
by which they were distinguished, were such as 
these, the gospel ;- — the Apostles ; — the divine 
Gospels ; — the Evangelical Instrument ; — the 
Scriptures of the Lord ; — Holy Scriptures ; — 
Evangelic voice ; — divine Scriptures ; — Oracles 
of the Lord ; — divine fountains ; — fountains of the 
divine fulness. 

2. These books were not in obscurity, but were 
read with veneration and avidity, by multitudes. 
They were read not only by the learned, but by the 
people; not only in private, but constantly, in the 
public assemblies of Christians, as appears by the 
explicit testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eu- 
sebius, Cyprian, and Augustine. And no other books 
were thus venerated and read. If some other pieces 
were publicly read, yet the Fathers always made a 
wide distinction between them, and the Sacred Scrip- 
tures. 

3. In all the controversies which arose in the 
church, these books were acknowledged by all, to be 
decisive authority, unless by some few of the very 
worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and 
forged others for themselves, under the names of the 
apostles. But, most of the heretics endeavored to 
support their opinions, by an appeal to the writings 
of the New Testament. The Valentinians, the Mon- 
tanists, the Sabellians, the Artemonists, the Arians, 
received the Scriptures of the New Testament. The 
same was the case with the Priscillianists, and the 
Pelagians. In the Arian controversy, which occu- 



239 



pied the church so long and so earnestly, the Scrip- 
tures were appealed to, by both parties; and no con- 
troversy arose, respecting the authenticity of the 
books of the New Testament. 

4. The avowed enemies of Christianity, who wrote 
against the truth, recognized the books which are 
now in the Canon, as those acknowledged by Chris- 
tians in their times, for they refer to the matters con- 
tained in them, and some of them mention several 
books by name; so that it appears from the accounts 
which we have of these writings, that they were 
acquainted with the volume of the New Testament. 
Celsus, who lived and wrote less than a hundred 
years after the apostles, says, as is testified by Ori- 
gen, who answered him, " I could say many things 
concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those too, differ- 
ent from what is written by the disciples of Jesus, 
but I purposely omit them." That Celsus here refers 
to the gospels, there can be no doubt. In another 
place, he says, " These things then, we have alleged 
to you, out of your own writings" And that the 
gospels to which he referred, were the same as those 
which we now possess, is evident from his reference 
to matters contained in them. 

Porphyry, in the third century, wrote largely, and 
professedly, against the Christian Religion ; and al- 
though his work has shared the same fate as that of 
Celsus, yet, from some fragments which have been 
preserved, we can ascertain, that he was well ac- 
quainted with the four gospels ; for the things to 
which he objects, are still contained in them. 

But the emperor, Julian, expressly mentions Mat- 
thew and Luke ; and cites various things out of the 



240 

gospels. He speaks also of John, and alleges, that 
none of Christ's disciples beside, ascribed to him the 
creation of the world ; — And also, " That neither 
Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, have dared 
to call Jesus, God ;" — " That, John wrote later than 
the other Evangelists, and at a time, when a great 
number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were 
converted." He alludes to the conversion of Corne- 
lius and Sergius Paulus ; to Peter's vision ; and to the 
circular letter sent by the apostles, at Jerusalem, to 
the churches ; which things are recorded, in the Acts 
of the apostles.* 

Now, if the genuineness of these books could have 
been impugned, on any plausible grounds ; or if any 
doubt had existed respecting this matter, surely such 
men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have 
been ignorant of the matter, and would not have 
failed to bring forward every thing of this kind, 
which they knew ; for their hostility to Christianity 
was unbounded. And it is certain, that Porphyry 
did avail himself of an objection of this kind, in re- 
gard to the book of Daniel. Since, then, not one of 
the early enemies of Christianity, ever suggested a 
doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New 
Testament, we may rest assured, that no ground of 
doubt existed, in their day ; and that the fact of these 
being the genuine writings of the men whose names 
they bear, was too clearly established, to admit any 
doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New 
Testament having been admitted, by friends and ene- 
mies — by the orthodox and heretics, in those ages, 

* See Lardner and Paley. 



241 



when the fact could be ascertained easily ; it is too 
late in the day, now, for infidels to call this matter in 
question. 

5. But the testimony which we possess, is not only 
sufficient to prove, that the books of the New Testa- 
ment were written by the persons whose names they 
bear ; but also, that these books, in the early ages of 
the church, contained the same things which are now 
read in them. Omitting any particular notice of 
about half a dozen passages, the genuineness of which 
is in dispute, I would remark, that when we com- 
pare the numerous and copious quotations from these 
books, which are found in the writings of the Fathers, 
with our own copies, the argument is most satisfac- 
tory. It is true, indeed, that the Fathers do some- 
times apparently quote from memory; and in that 
case, the words of the sacred writer are a little 
changed, or transposed, but the sense is accurately 
retained. In general, however, the quotations of 
Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers, are verbally 
exact; there being no other variation, than what 
arises from the different idiom of the language, which 
they use. I suppose, that almost every verse, in 
some books of the New Testament, has been cited 
by one or another of the Fathers ; so, that if that 
book were lost, it might be restored, by means of the 
quotations from it in other books. 

But, besides these quotations, we have versions of 
the whole New Testament, into various languages, 
some of which were made very early, probably, not 
much later than the end of the first, or beginning of 
the second century. Now, on a comparison, all 
these versions contain the same discourses, parables, 

x 



242 



miracles, doctrines, precepts, and divine institutions. 
Indeed, so literal have been most versions of the 
New Testament, that they answer to one another, 
and to the original, almost word for word. 

Besides, there are in existence, hundreds and thou- 
sands of Manuscripts of the New Testament, which 
were written in different ages of the church, from 
the fourth or fifth century, until the sixteenth. Most 
of these have been penned with great care, and in 
the finest style of Calligraphy. The oldest are writ- 
ten on beautiful parchment, in what are called un- 
cial, or capital letters. Some of these Manuscripts, 
contain all the books of the New Testament ; others 
only a part ; and in some instances, a single book. 
Some are in a state of good preservation, while others 
are worn and mutilated ; and the writing so obscure, 
as to be scarcely legible. And what is very remark- 
able, some copies of the New Testament on parch- 
ment, have been found written over again with other 
matter, after the original words had been as fully 
obliterated as could easily be done. This seems a 
very strange practice, considering that good copies 
of the Bible must have been always too few ; but the 
scarcity of parchment was so great, that men who 
were anxious to communicate their own lucubrations 
to the public, would resort to any shift, to procure 
the materials for writing. And this is not more cul- 
pable or more wonderful, than what has been known 
to take place in our own land and times, where the 
leaves of Walton's Polyglot Bible, have been torn 
and used for wrapping paper. 

The exact age of the oldest MSS. of the New 
Testament cannot be accurately ascertained, as they 



243 



have no dates accompanying them which can safely 
be depended on ; but as it is pretty well known at 
what period Greek accents were introduced: and 
also, when the large or uncial letter, as it is called, 
was exchanged for the small letter, now in common 
use ; if a MS. is found written in the old fashion, in 
large letters, without intervals between the words, 
and without accents, it is known that it must be 
more ancient than the period when the mode of 
writing was changed. Now, it is manifest, that when 
these MSS. were penned, the Canon was settled by 
common consent; for they all contain the same books? 
as far as they go. 

I will sum up my observations on the Canon of the 
New Testament, by quoting a sensible and very ap- 
propriate passage, frnm the late lpnrnpd Mr. RtfNWFXT,. 
It is found, in his Remarks on Hone's Collection of 
the apocryphal writings of the apostolic age. 

" When, was the Canon of Scripture determined. 
It was determined immediately after the death of St. 
John, the last survivor of the Apostolic order. The 
Canon of the gospels was indeed determined before 
his death, for we read in Eusebius, that he gave his 
sanction to the three other gospels, and completed 
this part of the New Testament with his own. By 
the death of St. John, the catalogue of Scripture 
was completed and closed. We have seen both from 
the testimony of themselves and of their immediate 
successors, that the inspiration of writing was con- 
fined strictly to the apostles, and accordingly we 
find, that no similar pretensions were ever made by 
any true christian to a similar authority. 

"By whom was the Canon of Scripture determined ? 



244 

It was determined not by the decision of any indi- 
vidual, nor by the decree of any council, but by 
the general consent of the whole and every part of 
the Christian Church. It is indeed a remarkable 
circumstance, that among the various disputes which 
so early agitated the church, the Canon of Scripture 
was never a subject of controversy. If any question 
might be said to have arisen, it was in reference to 
one or two of those books which are included in the 
present Canon ; but with respect to those which are 
out of the Canon, no difference of opinion ever ex- 
isted. 

" The reason of this agreement is a very satisfac- 
tory one. Every one who is at all versed in Eccle- 
siastical History is aware of the continual inter- 
course, which took place in the apostolical age be- 
tween the various branches of the church universal 
This communication, as Mr. Nolan has w 7 ell ob- 
served, arose out of the Jewish polity, under which, 
various synagogues of the Jews which were dispersed 
throughout the gentile world, were all subjected to 
the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and maintained a con- 
stant correspondence with it. Whenever then an 
epistle arrived at any particular church, it was first 
authenticated ; it was then read to all the holy breth- 
ren, and was subsequently transmitted to some other 
neighbouring church. Thus we find that the authen- 
tication of the epistles of Paul was, " The salutation 
with his own hand," by which the church to which 
the epistle was first addressed, might be assured that 
it was not a forgery. We find also a solemn adju- 
ration of the same apostle, that his epistle, ' should be 
read to all the holy brethren.' ' When this epistle 



245 



is read among you, cause that it be read also in the 
church of the Laoj^iceans, and that ye likewise read 
the epistle from Laodicea.' From this latter passage 
we infer, that the system of transmission was a very 
general one, as the epistle which St. Paul directs the 
Colossians to receive from the Laodiceans was not 
originally directed to the latter, but was sent to them 
from some other church. To prevent any mistake 
or fraud, this transmission w r as made by the highest 
authority, namely, by that of the bishop. Through 
him, official communications were sent from one 
church to another, even in the remotest countries. 
Clement, the bishop of Rome, communicated with 
the church at Corinth ; Poly carp, the bishop of Smyr- 
na, wrote an epistle to the Philippians ; Ignatius, the 
bishop of Antioch, corresponded with the churches 
of Rome, of Magnesia, of Ephesus, and others. 
These three bishops were the companions and im- 
mediate successors of the apostles, and followed the 
system of correspondence and intercourse which 
their masters had begun. Considering all these cir- 
cumstances, we shall be convinced how utterly im- 
probable it was, that any authentic work of an apos- 
tle should have existed in one church, without being 
communicated to another. It is a very mistaken 
notion of Dodwell, that the books of the New Tes- 
tament, lay concealed in the coffers of particular 
churches, and were not known to the rest of the 
world until the late days of Trajan. This might 
have been perfectly true, w 7 ith respect to the origi- 
nals, which were doubtless, guarded with peculiar 

2 Thes. iii, 17. 1 Thes. v. 27. Col. iv. 6. 

x 2 



246 



care, in the custody of the particular churches, to 
which they were respectively addressed. But copies 
of these originals, attested by the authority of the 
bishop, were transmitted from one church to another, 
with the utmost freedom, and were thus rapidly dis- 
persed throughout the Christian world. As a proof 
of this, St. Peter, in an Epistle addressed generally 
to the churches in Asia, speaks of "All the epistles 
of Paul," as a body of Scripture, universally circu- 
lated and known. 

The number of the apostles, including Paul and 
Barnabas, w r as but fourteen. To these, and these alone, 
in the opinion of the early church, was the inspira- 
tion of writing confined : out of these, six only deem- 
ed it necessary to write ; what they did write, was 
authenticated with the greatest caution, and circu- 
lated with the utmost rapidity ; what was received 
in any church as the writing of an apostle, was pub- 
licly read ; no church was left to itself, or to its own 
direction, but w T as frequently visited by the apostles, 
and corresponded with by their successors. All the 
distant members of the church universal, in the apos- 
tles' age, being united by frequent intercourse and 
communication, became one body in Christ. Taking 
all these things into consideration, we shall see with 
what ease and rapidity the Canon of Scripture would 
be formed, there being no room either for fraudulent 
fabrication, on the one hand, or for arbitrary rejec- 
tion, on the other. The case was too clear to require 
any formal discussion, nor does it appear that there 
was any material forgery, that could render it neces- 
sary. 

The writings of the apostles, and of the apostles 



247 



alone, were received as the word of God, and were 
separated from all others, by that most decisive spe- 
cies of authority, the authority of a general, an im- 
mediate, and an undisputed consent. 

This will appear the more satisfactory to our minds, 
if we take an example from the age in which we live. 
The letters of Junius, for instance, were published- at 
intervals, within a certain period. Since the publica- 
tion of the last authentic letter, many under that sig- 
nature have appeared, purporting to have been writ- 
ten by the same author. But this circumstance throws 
no obscurity over the matter, nor is the Canon of Ju- 
nius, if I may transfer the term from sacred to secu- 
lar writing, involved in any difficulty or doubt. If it 
should be hereafter inquired, at what time, or by what 
authority the authentic letters were separated from 
the spurious, the answer will be, that such a separa- 
tion never took place : but that the Canon of Junius 
was immediately determined after the last letter. To 
us, who live so near the time of publication, the line 
of distinction between the genuine and spurious is so 
strongly marked, and the evidence of authenticity on 
the one side, and of forgery on the other, is so clear 
and convincing, that a formal rejection of the latter, 
is unnecessary. The case has long since been deter- 
mined by the tacit consent of the whole British na- 
tion, and no man in his senses would attempt to dis- 
pute it. 

" Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scrip- 
tural Canon. The author of Junius was known to 
none, he could not therefore of himself bear any tes- 
timony to the authenticity of his works ; the authors 
of the New Testament were known to all, and were 



248 

especially careful to mark, to authenticate, and to 
distinguish their writings. The author of Junius had 
no personal character which could stamp his writing 
with any high or special authority; whatever pro- 
ceeded from the apostles of Christ, was immediately 
regarded as the offspring of an exclusive inspiration. 
For the Canon of Junius, we have no external evi- 
dence, but that of a single publisher : for the Canon 
of Scripture, we have the testimony of churches 
which were visited, bishops who were appointed, and 
converts innumerable, who were instructed by the 
apostles themselves. It was neither the duty nor the 
interest of any one, excepting the publisher, to pre- 
serve the volume of Junius from spurious editions : to 
guard the integrity of the sacred volume, was the 
bounden duty of every Christian who believed that 
its words were the words of eternal life. 

" If then, notwithstanding these and other difficul- 
ties which might be adduced, the Canon of Junius is 
established beyond controversy or dispute, by the ta- 
cit consent of all who live in the age in which it was 
written ; there can be no reason why the Canon of 
Scripture, under circumstances infinitely stronger, 
should not have been determined in a manner pre- 
cisely the same ; especially when we remember, that 
in both cases, the forgeries made their appearance 
subsequently to the determination of the Canon. There 
is not a single book in the spurious department of the 
apocryphal volume which was even known when the 
Canon of Scripture was determined. This is a fact 
which considerably strengthens the case. There was 
no difficulty or dispute in framing the Canon of Scrip- 
ture, because there were no competitors, whose claims 



249 



it was expedient to examine ; no forgeries, whose im- 
postures it was necessary to detect. The first age of 
the church, w r as an age of too much vigilance, of too 
much communication, of too much authority for any 
fabrication of Scripture, to hope for success. If any 
attempt was made, it w^as instantly crushed. When 
the authority of the apostles and of apostolic men had 
lost its influence, and heresies and disputes had arisen, 
then it was that forgeries began to appear .... 
Nothing, indeed, but the general and long determined 
consent of the whole Christian w r orld, could have pre- 
served the sacred volume in its integrity, unimpaired 
by the mutilation of one set of heretics, and unincum- 
bered by the forgeries of another." 



SECTION XIII. 

NO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS BEEN 
LOST. 

This was a subject of warm dispute between the Ro- 
manists and Protestants, at the time of the Refoi'ma- 
tion. The former, to make room for their farrago of 
unwritten traditions, maintained the affirmative ; and 
such men as Bellarmine and Pineda asserted roundly, 
that some of the most valuable parts of the Canonical 
Scriptures were lost. The Protestants, on the other 
hand, to support the sufficiency and perfection of the 
Holy Scriptures, the corner stone of the Reformation, 
strenuously and successfully contended, that no part 
of the Canonical volume had been lost. 

But the opinion, that some inspired books, which 
once belonged to the Canon, have been lost, has been 
maintained by some more respectable writers, than 
those Romanists just mentioned. Chrysostom, The- 
ophylact, Calvin, and Whitaker, have all, in some 
degree, countenanced the same opinion, in order to 
avoid some difficulty, or to answer some particular 
purpose. The subject, so far as the Old Testament is 
concerned, has already been considered; it shall now 
be our endeavour to show, that no Canonical book of 
the New Testament has been lost. 

And here, I am ready to concede, as was before 
done, that there may have been books written by in- 
spired men, that have been lost : for inspiration was 



251 

occasional, not constant ; and confined to matters of 
faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life ; or in 
matters of mere science. If Paul, or Peter, or any 
other apostle, had occasion to write private letters to 
their friends, on subjects not connected with religion, 
there is no reason to think that these were inspired ; 
and if such writings have been lost, the Canon of 
Scripture has suffered no more, by this means, than 
by the loss of any other uninspired books. 

But again, I am willing to go farther, and say, that 
it is possible, (although I know no evidence of the 
fact,)" that some things, written under the influence of 
inspiration, for a particular occasion, and to rectify 
some disorder in a particular church, may have been 
lost, without injury to the Canon. For, as much that 
the apostles preached by inspiration, is undoubtedly 
lost ; so there is no reason why every word which 
they wrote must necessarily be preserved, and form 
a part of the Canonical volume. For example, sup- 
pose that when Paul said, 1 Cor. v. 9, " I wrote to 
you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators" he 
referred to an epistle which he had written to the 
Corinthians, before the one now called the First, it 
might never have been intended that this letter should 
form a constituent part of the Canon : for although it 
treated of subjects connected with Christian faith or 
practice ; yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short 
time, of treating these subjects more at large, every 
thing in that epistle, (supposing it ever to have been 
written,) may have been included in the two epistles 
to the Corinthians, which are now in the Canon. Or, 
to adopt for illustration, the ingenious hypothesis of 
Dr. Lightfoot ; the epistle referred to, which was sent 



252 



by Timothy, who took a circuitous route through 
Macedonia, might not have reached them, until Paul 
wrote the long and interesting epistle, called, the 
First to the Corinthians ; and thus the former one 
would be superseded. But we adduce this case, 
merely for illustration ; for we will attempt, present- 
ly, to show, that no evidence exists, that any such 
epistle was ever written. 

1. The first argument to prove that no Canonical 
book has been lost, is derived from the watchful care 
of Providence, over the Sacred Scriptures. 

Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspi- 
ration of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part 
of the Canon, which is the rule of faith to the church, 
should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not 
very honourable to the wisdom of God ; and no how 
consonant with the ordinary method of his dispensa- 
tions, in regard to his precious truth. There is good 
reason to think, that if God saw it needful, and for 
the edification of the church, that such books should 
be written, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
by his providence he would have taken care to pre- 
serve them from destruction. We do know, that this 
treasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in 
the worst times, the special care of God, or not one 
of the sacred books would now be in existence. And 
if one Canonical book might be lost, through the ne- 
gligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And 
thus the end of God in making a revelation of his 
will, might have been defeated. 

But, whatever other corruptions have crept into 
the Jewish or Christian churches, it does not appear, 
that either of them, as a body, ever incurred the cen- 



253 

sure, of having been careless in preserving the Ora- 
cles of God Our Saviour never charges the Jews, 
who perverted the Sacred Scriptures to their own 
ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred de- 
posit intrusted to them. 

History informs us, of the fierce and malignant de- 
sign of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige 
of the sacred volume ; but the same history assures 
us, that the Jewish people manifested a heroic forti- 
tude, and invincible patience, in resisting and defeat- 
ing his impious purpose. They chose rather to sa- 
crifice their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to 
deliver up the copies of the Sacred Volume, in their 
possession. And the same spirit was manifested, and 
with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of 
the Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate 
the sacred writings of Christians, and multitudes suf- 
fered death for refusing to deliver up the New Tes- 
tament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a 
cruel persecution, did, in the hour of temptation, con- 
sent to surrender the holy book ; but they were ever 
afterwards called traitors ; and it was with the ut- 
most difficulty, that any of them could be received 
again, into the communion of the church, after a long 
repentance, and the most humbling confessions of 
their fault. Now, if any Canonical book was ever 
lost, it must have been in these early times, when the 
word of God was valued far above life, and when 
every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with his 
blood. 

2. Another argument, which appears to me to be 
convincing, is, that in a little time, all the sacred 
books were dispersed over the whole world. If a 

y 



254 



book had, by some accident or violence, been de- 
stroyed in one region, the loss could soon have been 
repaired, by sending for copies to other countries. 

The considerations just mentioned, would, I pre- 
sume, be satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not, 
that it is supposed, that there is evidence that some 
things were written by the apostles, which are not 
now in the Canon. We have already referred to an 
epistle to the Corinthians, which Paul is supposed to 
have written to them, previously to the writing of 
those which we now possess. But it is by no means 
certain, or even probable, that Paul ever did write 
such an epistle : for not one ancient writer makes the 
least mention of any such letter ; nor is there any 
where to be found any citation from it, or any refer- 
ence to it. 

It is a matter of testimony, in which all the Fa- 
thers concur, as with one voice, that Paul wrote no 
more than fourteen epistles, all of which we now have. 

The testimony of Clement of Rome, is clear on 
this subject; and he was the friend and companion of 
Paul, and must have known which was the First 
Epistle addressed by him to the Corinthian church. 
He says, in a passage before cited, " Take again the 
Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul into your hands. 
What was it that he first wrote to you, in the begin- 
ning of his Epistle ? He did truly by the Spirit write 
to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, 
because even at that time, you were formed into di- 
visions or parties." 

The only objection which can be conceived to this 
testimony, is, that Clement's words, when literally 
translated, read, " Take again the gospel (Ei/ay)*/*) 



255 



of the blessed apostle Paul ;" but it is well known, 
that the early Fathers called any book, containing 
the doctrines of Christ, the gospel ; and in this case, 
all reasonable doubt is precluded, because Clement 
identifies the writing, to which he referred, by men- 
tioning some of its contents, which are found in the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, and no w T here else. 

But still, Paul's own declaration, stands in the 
way of our opinion, " I wrote to you in an Epistle ;" 
the words in the original are, Eyga^st vptv iv *» zticqkh, 
the literal version of which is, " 1 have written to you 
in the Epistle, or, in this Epistle;" that is, in the for- 
mer part of it ; where, in fact, we find the very thing 
which he says that he had written. See v. 2, 5, 6, of 
this same fifth chapter. But it is thought, by learned 
and judicious commentators, that the words following, 
ing, Nvw cfs g^*4* vfjuv " but now 1 have written unto 
you" require that we should understand the former 
clause, as relating to some former time; but a care- 
ful attention to the context will convince us, that this 
reference is by no means necessary. The apostle had 
told them, in the beginning of the chapter, to avoid 
the company of fornicators, &c. ; but it is manifest, 
from the tenth verse, that he apprehended that his 
meaning might be misunderstood, by extending the 
prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse 
with the w r orld, therefore he repeats what he had 
said, and informs them, that it had relation only to 
the professors of Christianity, who should be guilty 
of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased, 
" I wrote to you above, in my letter, that you should 

1 Cor. v. 9, 11, 



256 



separate from those who were fornicators ; and that 
you should purge them out as old leaven; but fearing 
lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by infer- 
ring that I have directed you to avoid all intercourse 
with the heathen around you, who are addicted to 
these shameful vices, which would make it necessary 
that you should go out of the world, I now inform 
you, that my meaning is, that you do not associate 
familiarly with any who make a profession of Chris- 
tianity, and yet continue in these evil practices." 

In confirmation of this interpretation, we can ad- 
duce the Old Syriac Version, which, having been 
made soon after the days of the apostles, is good tes- 
timony in relation to this matter of fact. In this ve- 
nerable version, the meaning of the 11th verse is thus 
given, " This is what I have written unto you f " or, 
i; The meaning of what I have written unto you."* 

Dr. Whitby understands this passage, in a way dif- 
ferent from any that has been mentioned ; the reader 
is referred to his commentary, on the place. 

And we have before mentioned the ingenious con- 
jecture of Dr. Lightfoot, to which there is no objec- 
tion, except, that it is totally unsupported by evidence. 

It deserves to be mentioned here, that there is now 
extant, a letter from Paul to the Corinthians, distinct 
from those epistles of his, which we have in the Ca- 
non ; and also an epistle from the church of Corinth, 
to Paul. These epistles are in the Armenian lan- 
guage, but have been translated into Latin. The 
epistle ascribed to Paul is very short, and undoubt- 
edly spurious. It contains no prohibitions, relative to 

* See Jones on the Canon, vol. i. p. 139, 140. 



257 



keeping company with fornicators. It was never 
cited by any of the early w r riters ; nor indeed heard 
of, until within a century past. It contains some un- 
sound opinions, concerning the speedy appearance of 
Christ, which Paul, in some of his epistles, took pains 
to contradict. 

The manner of salutation, is very different from 
that of Paul ; and this apostle is made to declare, that 
he had received what he taught them, from the for- 
mer apostles, which is contrary to his repeated so— 
lemn asseveration, in several of his epistles. 

In regard to the epistle under the name of the 
church of Corinth, it does not properly fall under our 
consideration, for if it w r as genuine, it would have no 
claim to a place in the Canon. 

The curious reader, will find a literal translation of 
both these epistles, in Joxes' New Method or Set- 
tling the Canon.* 

The only other passage in the New Testament, 
which has been thought to refer to an Epistle of Paul, 
not now extant, is that in Col. iv. 16. " And when this 
Epistle is read among you, cause also that it be read 
in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise 
read the Epistle from Laodicea" 

Now, there is clear evidence, that so early as the 
beginning of the second century, there existed an 
epistle under this title ; but it w T as not received by the 
church, but was in the hands of Marcion, who was a 
famous forger and corrupter of sacred books. He 
was contemporary with Polycarp, and therefore very 
near to the times of the apostles, but was stigmatized 

* Vol. i. p. u. 
y2 



258 



as an enemy of the truth ; for he had the audacity to 
form a gospel, according to his own mind, which 
went by his name ; and also an apostolicon, which 
contained only ten of Paul's epistles; and these alter- 
ed and accommodated to his own notions. These, 
according to Epiphanius, were, The Epistle to the 
Galatians, the two to the Cm^inthians, to the Romans, 
the two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, to Phil- 
emon, and to the Philippians. — And, says he, " He 
takes in some part of that which is called the Epis- 
tle to the Laodiceans, and this he styles, the ele- 
venth, of those received by Marcion." 

Tertullian, however, gives a very different account 
of this matter. He asserts, " That Marcion and his 
followers, called that the epistle to the Laodiceans, 
which was the epistle to the Ephesians : which epis- 
tle,' says he, i we are assured, by the testimony of the 
church, was sent to the Ephesians, and not to the 
Laodiceans; though Marcion has taken upon him,, 
falsely, to prefix that title to it, pretending therein, to 
have made some notable discovery.' " And, again, 
" I shall say nothing now of that other epistle, which 
we have inscribed to the Ephesians ; but the heretics 
entitle it, to the Laodiceans." 

This opinion, which, by Tertullian, is ascribed to 
Marcion, respecting the true title of the epistle to the 
Ephesians, has been adopted, and ingeniously defend- 
ed, by several distinguished moderns, as Grotius, 
Hammond, Whitby, and Paley. They rely princi- 
pally on internal evidence ; for unless Marcion be ac- 
cepted as a witness, I do not recollect that any of the 
early writers can be quoted in favour of that opinion; 
but in the course of this work, we have put down the 



259 



express testimony of some of the most respectable 
and learned of the Fathers, on the other side; and all 
those passages in the epistle which seem inconsistent 
with its being addressed to the Ephesians, and neigh- 
bouring churches of Asia, can easily be explained. — 
See Lardner and Macknight. 

But there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, 
now extant, against which nothing can be said, ex- 
cept, that almost every thing contained in it is taken 
out of Paul's other epistles, so that if it should be re- 
ceived, we add nothing in reality to the Canon : and 
if it should be rejected, we lose nothing. The reader 
may find a translation of this Epistle inserted in the 
notes at the end of the volume. 

But what evidence is there, that Paul ever wrote 
an epistle to the Laodiceans ? The text on which this 
opinion has been founded, in ancient and modern 
times, correctly interpreted, has no such import. 
The words in the original are, *^ **» « Ad&txatxe iv& k&i 
v/uw Av&yvceri. "And that ye likewise read the Epis- 
tle from Laodicea" These words have been differ- 
ently understood; for by them some understand, that 
an epistle had been written by Paul to the Laodice- 
ans, which he desired might be read in the church at 
Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have understood them 
thus; and the Romish writers, almost universally, 
have adopted this opinion. " Therefore," says Bellar- 
mine, " it is certain that Paul's Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans is now lost." And their opinion is favoured by 
the Latin Vulgate, where we read, Eamque Laodi- 
censiwn — that which is of the Laodiceans ; but even 
these words admit of another construction. 

Col, iv. 16. 



260 



Many learned Protestants, also, have embraced the 
same interpretation ; while others suppose, that Paul 
here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they 
think he sent to the Laodiceans ; and that the present 
inscription is spurious. 

But that neither of these opinions is correct, may 
be rendered very probable. In regard to the latter, 
we have already said as much as is necessary ; and 
that Paul could not intend by the language used in 
the passage under consideration, an epistle written 
by himself, will appear by the following arguments. 

1. Paul could not with any propriety of speech, 
have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to 
the Laodiceans, an epistle from Laodicea. He cer- 
tainly would have said, ^« Aa^m^ty, or some such 
thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to 
any individual, or to any society, denominated, an 
epistle from them ? 

2. If the epistle referred to in this passage, had 
been one written by Paul, it would have been most 
natural for him to call it his epistle, and this would 
have rendered his meaning incapable of miscon- 
struction. 

3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact, 
and who were well acquainted with Paul's history 
and writings, never mention any such epistle: neither 
Clement, Hermas, nor the Syria c Interpreter, knew 
any thing of such an epistle of Paul ; and no one 
seems to have had knowledge of any such writing, 
except Marcion, who probably forged it to answer 
his own purposes. But whether Marcion did ac- 
knowledge an epistle different from all that we have 



261 



m the Canon, rests on the authority of Epiphanius, 
who wrote a criticism on the apostolicon of Mar- 
cion ; but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a dif- 
ferent story. It is of little importance to decide, 
which of these testimonies is most credible : for Mar- 
cion's authority, at best, is worthless, on such a sub- 
ject 

But it may be asked, to what epistle then, does 
Paul refer? To this inquiry, various answers have 
been given, and perhaps nothing determinate can 
now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul's 
First epistle to Timothy, was here intended. But 
this is not probable. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that 
it was the First epistle of John, which he supposes, 
was written from Laodicea. Others have thought, 
that it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it 
seems safest, in such a case, where testimony is de- 
ficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and 
to believe, that it was an epistle written by the Lao- 
diceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to 
the Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their 
perusal. 

That the epistle which is now extant, is not the 
same as that which formerly existed, at least as early 
as the fourth century, is evident from the quotations 
from the ancient epistle, by Epiphanius ; for no such 
words as he cites, are in that now extant. But can- 
dour requires that it be mentioned, that they are con- 
tained in the epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh 
as much as it is worth, in favor of the opinion, that 
the apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers 
to the epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, how- 



262 



ever, is perfectly consistent with our position, that no 
Canonical book of the New Testament has been 
lost. 

This proposition, we hope, will now appear to the 
reader, sufficiently established. 



SECTION XIV. 

RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL 

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH 

HAVE BEEN LOST ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED BY THE 

FOREGOING RULES REASON OF THE ABOUNDING OF 

SUCH BOOKS. 

Of the apocryphal books of the New Testament, 
the greater part have long since sunk into oblivion, 
but a few of them are still extant. All of them can 
be proved to be spurious, or at least not Canonical. 
Their claims have so little to support them, that they 
might be left to that oblivion, into which they have 
so generally fallen, were it not, that from time to 
time, persons unfriendly to our present Canon, bring 
forward these books, and pretend that some of them, 
at least, have as good claims to Canonical authority, 
as those which are received It will be satisfactory 
to the reader, therefore, to know the names of these 
books, and to understand the principles on which 
they have been uniformly rejected by the church. 

In the first place, then, I will mention the rules 
laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it 
may be determined that a book is apocryphal, and 
then I will give some account of the books of this 
class, w r hich have been lost ; and finally, consider the 
character of those which are still extant. 

1. That book is certainly apocryphal, which con- 
tains manifest contradictions. 



264 



The reason of this rule is too evident to need any 
elucidation. 

2. That book is apocryphal, ichich contains any 
doctrine or history, plainly contrary to those which are 
certainly known to be true. 

This rule also is too clear, to require any thing to 
be said in confirmation of its propriety. 

3. That book is apocryphal which contains any 
thing ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly 
and fabulous stories. 

This rule is not only true, but of great importance, 
in this inquiry ; as on examination, it will be found, 
that the largest part of apocryphal books may be 
detected by the application of this single rule. 

4. That book is apocryphal which mentions things 
of a date much later than the time in which the au- 
thor, under whose name it goes, lived. 

This rule does not apply to predictions of future 
events, which events occurred long after the death of 
the prophet ; but to a reference to facts, or names of 
places, or persons, as existing when the book was 
written, which are known to have existed, only at a 
period long since the time when the supposed author 
lived. The rule will be better understood, if illus- 
trated by particular examples. The book entitled, 
The Constitutions of the Apostles, speaks of the 
controversy which arose in the third century, re- 
specting the rebaptization of heretics, therefore, it is 
not the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has 
been ascribed ; nor was it written in his time, but 
long afterwards. 

Again, the book under the name of Hgesippus is 
not genuine, for it mentions Constantine, and Constan- 



265 



unopie, which had no existence until long after the 
death of Hegesippus. 

Moreover, in The Constitutions of the Apostles, 
there is mention of rites and ceremonies, relative to 
baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had 
no existence in the times of the apostles, therefore 
this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor 
in the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards. 

5. That book is apocryphal, the style of which is 
entirely different from the known style of the author, to 
whom it is ascribed. 

It is easy to counterfeit an author's name, age, 
country, opinions, &c. ; but it w r ill be found almost 
impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true, 
may vary his style, to suit different subjects, but there 
is commonly some peculiarity by which he may be 
distinguished from all others. " Jerome," says Six- 
tus, " writes one way, in his epistles, another in his 
controversies, a third in his commentaries; — one 
way when young, another w 7 hen old, yet he always 
so writes, that you may know him to be the same 
Jerome, still, as a man knows his friend, under all 
the various casts and turns of his countenance." 

Thus, Augustine says of Cyprian, " His style has 
a certain peculiar face, by which it may be known." 

It should be remembered, however, that this rule, 
although it may often furnish a certain detection of 
spurious writings, is one which requires much cau- 
tion in the application. There is need of a long and 
intimate acquaintance with the style of an author, 
before we are competent to determine whether a 
book could have been written by him : and the dif- 
ference ought to be very distinctly marked, before we 



266 

make it the ground of any important judgment, re- 
specting the genuineness of a work ascribed to him, 
especially if there be external evidence in its favour. 

In fact, too free an application of this rule has led 
to many errors, both in ancient and modern times. 

6. That book is spurious and apocryphal, whose 
idiom and dialect are different from those of the coun- 
try to which the reputed author belonged. 

The idiom and dialect of a language, are very 
different from the style of an author. Every lan- 
guage is susceptible of every variety of style, but 
the idiom is the same, in all who use the language : 
it is the peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a 
whole country. 

But as every writer has a style of his own, which 
cannot easily be imitated by another, so every coun- 
try has an idiom, which other nations, even if they 
learn the language, cannot, without great difficulty, 
acquire. And for the same reason that a writer can- 
not acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot 
divest himself of the peculiarities of his own. 

An Englishman can scarcely write and speak the 
French language, so as not to discover by his idiom, 
that it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence also, a 
North Britton can be distinguished, not only from the 
peculiarity of his pronunciation, but by his idiom. 
And this is the reason, that modern scholars can 
never write Latin, in the manner of the classic au- 
thors. 

This rule, therefore, is of great importance in de- 
tecting the spuriousness of a book, when the real au- 
thor lived after the time of the person whose name 
is assumed, or in a country where a different Ian- 



26? 



guage, or a different dialect was in use. It will be 
found almost impossible, to avoid phrases and modes 
of speech, which were not in use in the time of the 
person, under whose name the work is edited : and 
the attempt at imitating an idiom which is not per- 
fectly familiar, leads to an affectation and stiffness of 
manner, which usually betrays the impostor. 

The influence of native idiom, appears no where 
more remarkably, than in the writings of the New 
Testament. These books, although written in the 
Greek tongue, contain an idiom so manifestly differ- 
ent from that of the language in common use at that 
time, that it cannot but be observed by all, who 
have even a superficial acquaintance with Grecian 
literature. 

The fact is, as has often been observed by learned 
men, that while the words of these books are Greek, 
the idiom is Hebrew. The writers had, from their 
infancy, been accustomed to the Syro-Chaldaic lan- 
guage, which is a corruption of the ancient Hebrew. 
Now, this peculiarity of idiom could never have 
been successfully imitated by any native Greek ; nor 
by any one, not early conversant with the vernacular 
tongue of Palestine, at that time. When, therefore, 
men of other countries, and other times, undertook 
to publish books, under the name of the apostles, the 
imposture was manifest at once, to all capable of 
judging correctly on the subject ; because, although 
they could write in the same language as the apos- 
tles, they could not possibly imitate their idiom. 
This, therefore, furnishes a most important charac- 
teristic, to distinguish between the genuine writings 
of the apostles, and such as are supposititious. 



268 



7. That book is spurious which exhibits a disposition 
and temper of mind, very different from that of the 
person to whom it is ascribed. 

This rule depends on a principle in human nature, 
well understood, and needs no particular elucidation. 

8. That book is not genuine, which consists princi- 
pally of mere extracts from other books. 

This is also so evident, that it requires no illustra- 
tion. 

9. Those books which were never cited, nor referred 
to as Scripture, by any writer of credit for the fir •si 
four hundred years after the apostles 9 days, are apocry- 
phal 

10. Those books which were expressly rejected by 
the Fathers of the first ages, as spurious, and attributed 
by them to heretics, are apocryphal. 

By the application of the foregoing rules, it can be 
shown, that every book which claims Canonical au- 
thority, not included in our present Canon, is apoc- 
ryphal. When we denominate all books apocryphal 
which are not Canonical, we do not mean to reduce 
them all to the same level. A book which is not 
Canonical, may be a very instructive and useful book. 
As a human composition, it may deserve to be highly 
esteemed ; and as the writing of a pious and eminent 
man of antiquity, it may claim peculiar respect. 

The ancient method of division was more accurate 
than ours. They divided all books into three classes ; 
first, the Canonical ; secondly, the Ecclesiastical ; 
and thirdly, the Spurious. And there is reason to 
believe, that some books which were written without 
the least fraudulent design, by anonymous authors 



269 



have, by the ignorance of their successors, been as- 
cribed to the wrong persons. 

That the Fathers did sometimes cite apocryphal 
books, in their writings, is true ; but so did Paul cite 
the Heathen Poets. If these books are sometimes 
mentioned, without any note of disapprobation an- 
nexed, it can commonly be clearly ascertained from 
other places in the same author, that he held them to 
be apocryphal. Thus, Origen, in one place, quotes 

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, without any 

expression of disapprobation; but in another place, he 
rejects it, as spurious, and declares, " That the church 
receives no more than four gospels." 

Sometimes the Fathers cited these apocryphal 
books, to show that their knowledge was not con- 
fined to their own books, and that they did not reject 
others, through ignorance of their contents. Remark- 
ably to this purpose, are the words of Origen. " The 
church," says he, " receives only four gospels : here- 
tics have many, such as, the gospel of the Egyptians, 
the gospel of Thomas, &c. : these we read, that we 
may not seem to be ignorant to those who think they 
know something extraordinary, if they are acquaint- 
ed with those things which are recorded in these 
books." 

To the same purpose, speaks Ambrose ; for, having 
mentioned several of these books, he says, " We read 
these that they may not be read by others; we read 
them, that w r e may not seem to be ignorant ; we read 
them, not that we receive them, but that we may re- 
ject them : and may know what those things are, of 
which they make such a boast." 

In some instances, it seems probable, that some of 
z2 



270 



the Fathers took passages out of these books, because 
they were acknowledged by those against whom they 
were writing ; being willing to dispute with them on 
their own principles, and to confute them by their 
own books. 

It may perhaps be true also, that one or two of the 
Fathers cited passages from these books, because 
they contained facts not recorded in the Canonical 
gospels. The apostle John informs us, that our Lord 
performed innumerable miracles, besides those which 
he had recorded ; " The which, if they should be ivrit- 
ten, every one, I suppose the world itself, could not con- 
tain the boohs which should be written" Now, some 
tradition, of some of these things, would undoubtedly 
be handed down as low as to the second century, and 
might find its way into some of the apocryphal gos- 
pels, and might be cited by persons w 7 ho did not be- 
lieve the book to be of Canonical authority, just as 
we refer to any profane author for the proof of such 
facts as are credibly related by them. There is, at 
least, one example of this. Jerome refers to the gos- 
pel according to the Hebrews, for a fact ; and yet he 
most explicitly rejects this book as apocryphal. 

The only books which were ever read in the 
churches, besides the Canonical, were a few written 
by apostolical men ; which, although not written by 
a plenary inspiration, were the genuine writings of 
the persons whose names they bore, and were pious 
productions, and tended to edification ; such as, the 
Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hernias, and the 
Epistle of Barnabas ; but no spurious books were ever 
read in the churches. 

None of the writings falsely ascribed to Christ and 



271 



his apostles, ever acquired so much authority, as to 
be publicly read in any church, as far as we know. 
Indeed, although the apocryphal books of the New 
Testament were very numerous, yet they did not ap- 
pear in the age of the church next after the times of 
the apostles. In the first century, no books of this de- 
scription are referred to, unless we suppose that Luke, 
in the beginning of his gospel, intends to speak of 
such. In the second century, a few spurious writings 
began to be first put into circulation, as, the Gospel 

ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS ; THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH, 

used by the Valentinians : the Preaching of Peter; 
the traditions of matthias ; the acts of paul and 
Thecla : the Gospel of Marcion ; the Revelation 
of Cerinthus : and a few others of less note. But in 
the third century, the number of apocryphal books 
was considerably increased ; and in the fourth and 
fifth centuries, they were exceedingly multiplied. 

If it be inquired, how it happened that so many 
apocryphal books were written, it may confidently 
be answered, that the principal cause was, the abound- 
ing of heresies. Almost all the spurious writings, un- 
der the names of the apostles, are the productions of 
heretics, as we learn from the testimony of those Fa- 
thers who have made mention of them. It is however 
true, that some mistaken well-meaning people thought 
that they could add honour to the apostles, or contri- 
bute to the edification of the church, by resorting tc 
(what have improperly been called) pious frauds. 
They imagined, also, that they could recommend 
Christianity to the Gentiles, by inventing stories, 
which they rashly pretended, were sayings, or ac- 
tions of Christ : thus adopting the pernicious max- 



272 



im, so peremptorily denounced by Paul, " that we 
may do evil that good may come;" or that the good- 
ness of the end, will satisfy the badness of the means. 
Of this, we have one remarkable example, in the spu- 
rious book, still extant, entitled, The Acts of Paul and 
Thecla, which a certain Asiatic presbyter confessed 
that he had forged, and assigned, as his reason for 
this forgery, that he wished to show respect to Paul. 
But, in connexion with this fact, we have satisfactory 
proof of the vigilance of the church, in guarding the 
Sacred Canon from corruption ; for the book w 7 as no 
sooner published, than a strict inquiry was instituted 
into its origin, and the presbyter mentioned above, 
having been detected as the author, was deprived of 
his office in the church. This account is given by 
Tertullian ; and Jerome adds, that the detection of 
this forgery was made by the apostle John. 

It is probable, also, that some of these books were 
written without any evil purpose, by weak men, who 
wrote down all the stories they had received by tra- 
dition; for, no doubt, a multitude of traditions respect- 
ing Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distor- 
tions and additions, would be handed down for seve- 
ral generations. 

By all these means, the number of apocryphal 
books of the New Testament was greatly multiplied. 
But by far the greater number of these have perish- 
ed; yet there is no difficulty in determining, that none 
of them had any just claim to a place in the Canon. 
By one or more of the rules laid down above, they 
can all be demonstrated to have been apocryphal : 
and indeed most of them are never mentioned by any 
ancient author, in any other light than as spurious 



273 



writings.* There is a famous decree of pope Gela- 
sius, in which, at least, twenty-five of these books are 
named, and declared to be apocryphal. It is not cer- 
tain, indeed, whether this decree ought to be ascribed 
to Gelasius, or to one of his predecessors, Damasus ; 
but there can be no doubt that it is very ancient, and 
is by most supposed to have been formed; in the 
council which met at Rome, A. D. 494. A transla- 
tion of this decree, extracted from Jones, will be 
found in the notes at the end of the volume.f 



* See Note D. f See Note E, 



SECTION XV. 

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH ARE STILL EXTANT LETTER 

OF ABGARUS KING OF EDESSA TO JESUS, AND HIS AN- 
SWER EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS LETTERS OF 

PAUL TO SENECA PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES THE 

GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S INFANCY THE ACTS OF PI- 
LATE THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 

We come now to consider those apocryphal books, 
which are still extant, and concerning which, there- 
fore, we can speak more particularly. 

The first of these, is, the Letter of Abgarus, King 
of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, and sent by his footman 
Ananias. 

Eusebius is the first who makes mention of this 
Epistle, and the sum of his account is, that our Sa- 
viour's miraculous works drew innumerable persons 
to him, from the most remote countries, to be healed 
of their diseases ; — that Abgarus, a famous king be- 
yond the Euphrates, wrote to him, because he was 
afflicted with a malady, incurable by human art. Our 
Lord promised to send one of his disciples to him, 
and Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples, was sent 
by Thomas, after the ascension of Jesus, by an inti- 
mation given him from heaven. For the truth of this 
story, Eusebius appeals to the public records of the 
city of Edessa, where, he says, all the transactions of 
the reign of Abgarus are preserved in the Syriac 
languagq : out of which he translated these Epistles, 



275 



and the accompanying history. He proceeds to re- 
late, that Thaddeus, having come to Edessa, wrought 
many miracles, and healed many that were diseased. 
Abgarus, supposing that this was the person whom 
Christ had, in his letter, promised to send to him, as 
soon as Thaddeus was introduced to him, perceiving 
something extraordinary in his countenance, fell down 
before him, at which his nobles were greatly surprised, 
The king having inquired, whether he was the person 
sent by Christ, he answered, that on account of the 
faith of Christ he was sent, and assured him, that all 
things had been according to his faith. To which the 
king replied, that he believed so much in Christ, that 
he was resolved, had it not been for fear of the Ro- 
mans, to have made war with the Jews for crucify- 
ing him. Thaddeus informed him of the ascension of 
Christ to his Father ; the king replied, I believe in 
him, and in his Father also : on w T hich the apostle 
said, I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord 
Jesus Christ; and the king was instantly cured of his 
disease. He also cured others who were diseased; 
and, on the morrow, the king ordered all the city to 
meet together, to hear the apostle preach. The king 
offered him gold and silver, which he refused, saying, 
" We have left our own, and should we take that which 
is another's!" 

These Epistles are also mentioned by Ephrem, the 
Syrian, who was a deacon in the church of Edessa, 
in the latter end of the fourth century. His account 
of this matter, as given by Dr. Grabe, is as follows : 
bi Blessed be your city, and mother Edessa, which 
was expressly blessed by the mouth of the Lord, and 
his disciples, but our apostles ; for when Abgarus the 



276 



king, who built that city, thought fit to send and ac* 
knowledge Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all^ in 
his pilgrimage on earth; saying, I have heard all 
things which are done by you, and how much you 
have suffered by the Jews, who contemn you; where- 
fore, come hither, and take up your residence with 
me. I have a little city, which shall be equally yours 
and mine. Hereupon, the Lord, admiring his faith, 
sent, by messengers, a blessing unto the city, which 
should abide for ever, till the Holy One be revealed 
from Heaven, even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and 
God of God." 

No other writer of the first four centuries, makes 
any explicit mention of this Epistle ; but Procopius, in 
the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war, 
relates, " That Abgarus had been long afflicted with 
the gout, and finding no relief from the physicians, 
but hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him> 
and desired that he would come and live with him ; 
and that upon his receiving an answer from Christ, 
he was immediately cured : and that our Saviour, in 
the end of his letter, gave Abgarus assurance, that 
his city should never be taken by enemies." 

Evagrius, in the latter end of the sixth century, 
appeals to this account of Procopius, and confirms 
the story, that the city never should be taken by en- 
emies, by a reference to some facts, particularly the 
failure of Chosroes to take the city, when he laid 
siege to it. But this author adds a circumstance, 
which has much the air of a fable, that this failure 
of capturing the city was brought about by a picture 
of Christ's face, which he had impressed on a hand- 
kerchief, and sent to Abgarus, at his earnest request. 



277 



Cedrenus adds to all the rest, that Christ sealed 
his letter with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew let- 
ters, the meaning of which was, the divine miracle of 
God is seen. 

Among the moderns, a very large majority are of 
opinion, that this Epistle is apocryphal. Indeed, the 
principal advocates of its genuineness, are a few 
learned Englishmen, particularly Dr. Parker, Dr. 
Cave, and Dr. Grabe, but they do not speak confi- 
dently on the subject ; while on the other side are 
found almost the whole body of learned critics, both 
Pi'otestants and Romanists. Now, that this epistle 
and history existed in the archives of Edessa, in the 
time of Eusebius, there is no room to doubt, unless 
we would accuse this respectable historian of the 
most deliberate falsehood; for he asserts that he him- 
self had taken them thence. His words, however, 
must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had 
himself been at Edessa, and had translated the epis- 
tle from the Syriac ; for there is reason to believe 
that he never visited that place, and that he was not 
acquainted with the Syriac tongue. The words will 
be sufficiently verified, if this document was trans- 
lated and transmitted to him, through an authentic 
channel, from Edessa. 

It is probable, therefore, that this story has some 
foundation in truth. Probably Thaddeus, or some 
other apostle, did preach the gospel and perform mi- 
racles in that city; but how much of the story is cre- 
dible, it is not now easy to determine. But, I think, 
it may be shown, that this Epistle was never penned 
by Jesus Christ, for the following reasons : 

a a 



278 



1. It is never mentioned in the genuine gospels; nor 
referred to by any writer of the first three centuries. 

2. If this account had been true, there never could 
have been any hesitation, among the apostles, about 
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. 

3. It is unreasonable to believe, that if Christ had 
been applied to by this king for healing, he would 
have deferred a cure, until he could send an apostle, 
after his ascension. This does not correspond with 
the usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour. 

4. It seems to have been a tradition universally re- 
ceived, that Christ never wrote any thing himself; 
and if he had written this letter, it would have been 
more prized than any other portion of Scripture, and 
would have been placed in the Canon, and every 
where read in the churches. 

5. After it was published by Eusebius, it never 
gained so much credit, as to be received as a genu- 
ine writing of Christ. As it was unknown in the first 
three centuries; so, in the fourth, when published, it 
was scarcely noticed by any writer. 

6. The plain mention of our Lord's ascension, in 
the Epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness ; for in 
all his discourses, recorded by the Evangelists, there 
is no such explicit declaration of this event ; and it 
cannot be supposed, that he would speak more expli- 
citly to a heathen king, than to the persons, chosen 
to be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his 
doctrine. 

There is, however, nothing in the sentiments ex- 
pressed in this epistle, unsuitable to the humble and 
benevolent character of the Saviour; but learned men 
have supposed, that there are several internal evi- 



279 



deuces of spuriousness. besides the one just mention- 
ed. I conceive, however, that the reasons already 
assigned will be considered as sufficient to prove, 
that this letter forms no part of the Sacred Canon. 
It is excluded by several of the rules laid down, 
above: and even if it were genuine, it seems that it 
ought rather to be received as a private communica- 
tion, than as intended for the edification of the whole 
church. The history, which accompanies the letter, 
has several strong marks of spuriousness, but as this 
does not claim to be Canonical, we need not pursue 
the subject farther. It may, however, not be amiss 
to remark, that the story of the picture of our Saviour 
impressed on a handkerchief, and sent to Abgarus, is 
enough, of itself, to condemn the history as fabulous. 
This savours not of the simplicity of Christ ; and has 
no parallel in any thing recorded in the gospel.* 

II. There is now extant, an epistle, under the title 
of, Paul to the Laodiceaxs ; and it is known, that as 
early as the beginning of the second century, a work 
existed under this name, which was received by Mar- 
ciox, the heretic. But there is good reason for think- 
ing, that the epistle now extant, is an entirely differ- 
ent work, from the one which anciently existed : for 
the present epistle does not contain the words, which 
Epiphanius has cited from that used by Marcion: 
and what renders this clear is, that the ancient epis- 
tle was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of 
the church, with one consent: whereas, the one which 
we now have contains nothing erroneous : for it is a 
mere compilation from the other epistles of Paul, with 

* See N«te F ; 



280 



a few additional sentences, which contain no hereti- 
cal doctrine. 

As the epistle is short, a translation of it will be 
given in the Notes, at the end of the volume.* 

Concerning the ancient epistle under this title, Phi- 
lastrius says, " That some were of opinion, that it 
was written by Luke ; but because the heretics have 
inserted some (false) things, it is, for that reason, not 
read in the churches. Though it be read by some, 
yet there are no more than thirteen epistles of Paul 
read to the people in the church, and, sometimes, that 
to the Hebrews." 

" There are some," says Jerome, " who read an 
epistle, under the name of Paul, to the Laodiceans, 
but is rejected by all." 

And Epiphanius calls it, " An epistle not written 
by the apostles." 

The epistle now extant, never having been received 
into the ancient catalogues, read in the churches, or 
cited as Scripture, is of course apocryphal. 

It is also proved not to be genuine, because it is 
almost entirely an extract from the other epistles of 
Paul. 

III. Another writing, which has been ascribed to 
Paul, is, Six Letters to Seneca ; with which are 
connected, Eight letters from Seneca to Paul. These 
letters are of undoubted antiquity ; and several learn- 
ed men of the Jesuits, have defended them as genu- 
ine ; and allege, that they are similar to other Epis- 
tles received into the Canon, which were addressed 
to individuals. That such letters were in existence as 

* See Note G. 



281 



early as the fourth century, appears from a passage 
in Jerome's Catalogue of Illustrious Men, where he 
gives the following account of Seneca : " Lucius An- 
nseus Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a 
Stoic, uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very 
extraordinary temperance, whom I should not have 
ranked in my Catalogue of Saints, but that I was de- 
termined to it, by the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, 
and Seneca to Paul, which are read by many. In 
which, though he was at that time tutor to Nero, and 
made a very considerable figure, he saith, he wishes 
to be of the same repute among his countrymen, as 
Paul was among the Christians. He was slain by 
Nero, two years before Peter and Paul were honour- 
ed with martyrdom/' 

There is also a passage in Augustine's 54th Epis- 
tle, to Macedonius, which shows that he was not un- 
acquainted with these Letters. His words are, " It is 
true, which Seneca, who lived in the times of the 
apostles, and who wrote certain Epistles to Paul, which 
are now read, said, he who will hate those who are 
wicked, must hate all men." 

There is no authentic evidence, that these letters 
have been noticed by any of the rest of the Fathers. 
Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted, by several 
eminent critics, that Augustine believed that the let- 
ters of Paul to Seneca were genuine ; but the fact is, 
that he makes no mention, whatever, of Paul's letters; 
he only mentions those of Seneca to Paul. The pro- 
bability is, that he never saw them, for had he been 
acquainted with them, it is scarcely credible, that he 
would have said nothing respecting them, in this 
place. 

a a 2 



282 



Neither does Jerome say any thing from which it 
can with any certainty be inferred, that he received 
these letters as genuine. He gives them the title by 
which they were known, and says, they were read 
by many ; but if he had believed them to be genuine 
letters of Paul, would he not have said much more I 
Would he not have claimed for them a place among 
Paul's Canonical epistles'? And what proves, that this 
Father did not believe them to be genuine, is, that in 
this same book, he gives a full account of Paul and 
his writings, and yet does not make the least mention 
of these letters to Seneca. 

But the style of these letters sufficiently demon- 
strates that they are not genuine. Nothing can be more 
dissimilar to the style of Paul, and of Seneca, than 
that of these epistles. " The style of those attributed 
to Seneca," says Du Pin, " is barbarous, and full of 
idioms, that do not belong to the Latin tongue." — 
" And those attributed to Paul," says Mr. Jeremiah 
Jones, " have not the least tincture of the gravity of 
the apostle, but are rather compliments than instruc- 
tions." 

The subscriptions to these Letters, are very differ- 
ent from those used by these writers in their genuine 
Epistles. Seneca is made to salute Paul by the name 
of brother; an appellation not in use among the Hea- 
then, but peculiar to Christians. 

By several of these letters, it would appear, that 
Paul was at Rome when they were written, but from 
others, the contrary may be inferred. 

It seems strange, if they were both in the city, that 
they should date their letters by consulships ; and, in- 



283 



deed, this method of dating letters, was wholly un- 
known among the Romans; and there are several 
mistakes in them, in regard to the consuls in autho- 
rity, at the time. 

Their trifling contents is also a strong argument of 
spuriousness. " They contain nothing," says Du Pin, 
" worthy either of Seneca or of Paul ; scarcely one 
moral sentiment in the letters of Seneca, nor any 
thing of Christianity in those of Paul." 

What can be more unlike Paul than the Fifth let- 
ter, which is occupied with a servile apology for put- 
ting his own name before Seneca's, in the inscription 
of his letters, and declaring this to be contrary to 
Christianity ? 

These letters, moreover, contain some things which 
are not true, as, " That the emperor Nero was 
delighted and surprised at the thoughts in Paul's 
epistles to the Churches: — "And that Nero was both 
an admirer and favourer of Christianity." But very 
incongruous with this, and also with Paul's character, 
is that which he is made to say, in his Fourth epistle, 
where he entreats Seneca to say no more to the em- 
peror respecting him or Christianity, lest he should 
offend him. Yet, in the Sixth letter, he advises Se- 
neca to take convenient opportunities of insinuating 
the Christian religion, and things favorable to it, to 
Nero and his family. But for further particulars, the 
reader is referred to the epistles themselves, a trans- 
lation of which, extracted from Jones, is inserted in 
the Notes.* 

* See Note H. 



284 



IV. There is extant, a spurious gospel, entitled, 
The Protevangelion of James, in the Greek lan- 
guage, which was brought from the east by Postell, 
who asserts, that it is held to be genuine by the ori- 
ental churches, and is publicly read in their assem- 
blies, with the other Scriptures. This learned man, 
moreover, undertakes the defence of this gospel, as 
the genuine production of the apostle James ; and 
insists, that it ought at least, to have a place in the 
Hagiographa. But his arguments are weak, and 
have been fully refuted by Fabricius and Jones. 

This apocryphal book, however, appears to be an- 
cient ; or at least, there was formerly a book under 
the same name, but that it is not Canonical, is easily 
proved. It is quoted by none of the ancient Fathers, 
except Epiphanius, who explicitly rejects it, as apoc- 
ryphal. 

It is found in none of the catalogues, and was 
never read in the primitive church. It contains many 
false and trifling stories ; and in its style and com- 
position, is a perfect contrast to the genuine gospels 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

From the Hebraisms with which it abounds, it has 
been supposed to be the work of some person, who 
was originally a Jew ; but as it was anciently used 
by the Gnostics, there can be little doubt, that the 
author when he wrote, belonged to some one of the 
heretical sects, which so abounded in primitive times. 

There is also another work, which has a near 
affinity with this, called The Nativity of Mary. 
And although these books possess a similar character, 
and contain many things in common ; yet in other 
points they are contradictory to each other, as they 
both are, to the evangelical history. 



285 



The internal evidence, is itself, sufficient to satisfy 
any candid reader of their apocryphal character.* 

V. The largest apocryphal gospel extant, is enti- 
tled, The Gospel of our Savioub/s Infancy. There 
is also remaining a fragment of a gospel ascribed to 
Thomas, which probably was, originally, no other 
than the one just mentioned. 

These gospels were never supposed to be Canonical 
by any Christian writer. They were forged and 
circulated by the Gnostics, and altered from time to 
time, according to their caprice. 

The Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, seems to 
have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his 
assistants ; for according to his own account, in the 
Koran, he was unable to read. Many of the things 
related in the Koran, respecting Christianity, are 
from this apocryphal work. 

This gospel is condemned by almost every rule 
laid down for the detection of spurious writings ; and 
if all other evidence were wanting, the silly, trifling, 
and ludicrous stories, with w T hich it is stuffed, would 
be enough to demonstrate, that it was spurious and 
apocryphal. To give the curious reader an opportu- 
nity of contrasting these apocryphal legends with the 
gravity and simplicity of the genuine gospels, I have 
inserted some of the miracles recorded in this book, 
at the end of the volume.! 

It seems highly probable that this gospel of the 
Saviour's Infancy, and the book of the Nativity of 

* Both the& apocryphal works may be seen in the second volume 
of Jones' learned work on the Canon, 
i See Note L 



286 



Mary, were originally parts of the same work ; an 
evidence of which is, that in the Koran, there is a 
continued and connected story, which is taken partly 
from the one, and partly from the other.* The same 
thing is proved by the fact, that Jerome, in one place, 
speaks of a preface which he had written to the gos- 
pel of our Saviour's Infancy, in which he condemns 
it, because it contradicts the gospel of John, and in an- 
other place, he uses the same words, and says they 
are in the preface to the Nativity of Mary. 

Both these apocryphal books have been formerly 
ascribed to Leucius Charinus, who lived in the latter 
part of the third century, and who rendered himself 
famous, by forging spurious works, under the name 
of the apostles. 

VI. There is another apocryphal gospel, entitled, 
the Gospel of Nicodemus, or, the Acts of Pilate, 
which was probably forged about the same time as 
the one last treated of, and it is very likely, by the 
same person. 

That it was the custom for the governors of pro- 
vinces in the Roman empire, to transmit to the em- 
perors an account of all remarkable occurrences un- 
der their government, is capable of proof from the 
Roman history: and Eusebius expressly informs us, 
that this was customary : and Philo Judceus speaks, 
" Of the daily memoirs which were transmitted to 
Caligula, from Alexandria. 5 ' 

That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account of 
the crucifixion of Christ, and of his wonderful works, 
is, therefore, in itself, highly probable ; but it is ren- 

* See Koran, chap. iji. 



287 



dered certain, by the public appeal made to these 
Acts of Pilate, both by Justin Martyr and Ter- 
tullian, in their Apologies ; the one addressed to the 
Roman emperor, Antonius Pius, and the other, pro- 
bably, to the Roman Senate. The words of Justin 
Martyr, are, " And of the truth of these facts you 
may be informed, out of the Acts which were writ- 
ten by Pontius Pilate." And in the same Apology, 
he refers to these Acts for proof, " That our Saviour 
cured all sorts of diseases, and raised the dead." 

Tertullian, in two places of his Apology, appeals 
to Records which were transmitted to Tiberius, 
from Jerusalem. His testimony is remarkable in 
both places, and deserves to be transcribed : " Tibe- 
rius," says he, " in whose time the Christian name 
became first known in the world, having received in- 
formation from Palestine, in Syria, that Jesus Christ 
had there given manifest proof of the truth of his 
divinity, communicated it to the Senate, insisting 
upon it as his prerogative, that they should assent to 
his opinion in that matter ; but the senate not approv- 
ing it, refused. Caesar continued in the same opinion, 
threatening those who were accusers of the Chris- 
tians." 

In the other passage, after enumerating many of 
the miracles of Christ, he adds, "All these things, 
Pilate himself, who was in his conscience for follow- 
ing Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Caesar ; and even 
the Caesars themselves had been Christians, if it had 
been consistent with their secular interests." Both 
Eusebius and Jerome, cite the testimony of Tertul- 
lian, as authentic. It seems therefore certain, that 
some account of Christ and his actions was trans- 



288 



mitted by Pilate to the emperor. " For," to use the 
words of an eminent man, " Tertullian, though a 
Christian writer, durst never have presumed to im- 
pose upon the senate themselves, with such a remark- 
able story, if he was not able to prove it ; and that 
he was, is evident from Justin Martyr, who often ap- 
peals to the Acts of Pilate, concerning the history of 
our Saviour — That Pilate did send such Acts is evi- 
dent, for scarce any man, much less such a man as 
Justin Martyr, would have been so foolish, or so con- 
fident, as to affirm a thing in which it would be so 
easy to convict him of falsehood."* 

And another, speaking of the same thing, says- 
" They were men of excellent learning and judg- 
ment; but no man w T ho could write an Apology, 
can be supposed to have so little understanding, as 
to appeal to that account w T hich Pilate sent to Tibe- 
rius, concerning the resurrection of Christ, in Apol- 
ogies, dedicated to the Roman emperor himself, and 
to the senate, if no such account had ever been sent"! 

It does not follow, however, that these Fathers had 
ever seen these Acts, or that they were ever seen by 
any Christian. During the reigns of Heathen em- 
perors, Christians could have no access to the ar- 
chives of the nation ; but the fact of the existence 
of such a record, might have been, and probably was. 
a matter of public notoriety ; otherwise, w 7 e never 
can account for the confident appeal of these learned 
and respectable writers. There is no difficulty in 
conceiving how such a fact might have been certainly 
known to these Fathers, without supposing that they 

* Dr. Parker. f Dr. Jenkin. 



289 



had seen the record. As the learned Casaubon says, 
" Some servants or officers of one of the Cassars, who 
were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity 
of searching the public records at Rome, gave this 
account to some Christians, from whom Justin and 
Tertullian had it." 

It may seem to be an objection to the existence of 
such Acts, that they were never made public, when 
the emperors became Christians ; but it is altogether 
probable, that they w T ere destroyed through the ma- 
lice of the Senate, or of some Roman Emperor who 
was hostile to Christianity. They who took so much 
pains to destroy the writings of Christians, would not 
suffer such a monument of the truth of Christianity 
to remain in their own palace. 

But as to those Acts of Pilate which are now ex- 
tant, no one supposes that they are genuine. They 
have every mark of being spurious. The external and 
internal evidence is equally against them ; and it would 
be a waste of time to enter into any discussion of this 
point. 

It may, however, be worth w 7 hile to inquire into the 
motives which probably led some mistaken Christian 
to forge such a narrative. And there seem to have 
been two : first, to have it in his power to show the 
record, to which the Fathers had so confidently re- 
ferred. The Heathen adversaries might say, after the 
destruction of the genuine Acts of Pilate, where is the 
document to which this appeal has been made, let it 
be produced. And some man thinking that he could 
serve the cause of Christianity, by forging Acts, un- 
der the name of Pilate, was induced, through a mis- 
taken zeal, to write this narrative. 

Bb 



290 



But there was another reason which probably had 
some influence on this fact. About the close of the 
third century, the Heathen had forged and published 
a writing, called The Acts of Pilate, the object of 
which was, to render the Christians odious and con- 
temptible to the public, by foul calumnies against 
their Founder and his apostles. Of this fact, Euse- 
bius gives us express and particular information; 
" From w T hence," says he, " the forgery of these is 
manifestly detected, who have lately published cer- 
tain Acts, against our Saviour. In which, first, the 
very time which is assigned to. them, discovers the 
imposture ; for those things which they have impu- 
dently forged? to have come to pass at our Saviour's 
crucifixion, are said to have occurred in the fourth 
consulship of Tiberius, which coincides with the 
seventh of his reign ; at which time, it is certain, Pi- 
late was not yet come into Judea ; if any credit is 
due to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was 
not constituted governor of Judea, until the twelfth 
year of Tiberius."* 

And in another place, he says, ki Seeing therefore 
that this writer, (Josephus) who was himself a Jew, 
has related such things in his history concerning John 
the Baptist and the Saviour, what c^n they possibly 
say for themselves, to prevent being convicted of the 
most impudent forgery, who wrote those things 
against John and Christ." 

And in the ninth book of his Ecclesiastical History, 
this writer gives us information, still more particular, 
respecting this malicious forgery. " At length, {the 

* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. Lib. I. 0.9, 11. 



291 



Heathen) having forged certain Acts of Pilate, con- 
cerning our Saviour, which were full of all sorts of 
blasphemy against Christ, they caused them, by the 
decree of Maximums, to be dispersed through all 
parts of the empire; commanding by letters, that 
they should be published to all persons, in every place, 
both in cities and country places ; and that school- 
masters should put them into the hands of their chil- 
dren, and oblige them to learn them by heart, instead 
of their usual lessons/' 

Here it may be observed, that while this impudent 
forgery clearly shows with what malicious efforts the 
attempt was made to subvert the gospel, it proves at 
the same time, that there had existed a document 
under the name of, The Acts of Pilate. 

Now, the circulation of such an impious piece of 
blasphemy, probably instigated Charinus, or who- 
ever was the author of these Acts, to counteract 
them by a work of another kind, under the same 
name. 

How this book came to be called, The Gospel or 
Nicodemus, will appear by the subscription annexed 
to it, in which it is said, " The emperor Theodosius 
the great, found at Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius 
Pilate, among the public records ; — the things which 
were transacted in the nineteenth year of Tiberius 
Caesar, emperor of the Romans — being a History 
written in Hebrew by Mcodemus, of w r hat happened 
after our Saviour's crucifixion." And if this sub- 
scription be no part of the original work, still it may 
have occasioned this title ; or, it may have originated 
in the fact, that much is said about Nicodemus, in the 
story which is here told. 



292 



But even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, or 
some History of Nieodemus, it needs no proof, that 
they could have no just claim to a place in the 
Canon. 

VII. The last apocryphal book, which I shall men- 
tion, is that entitled The Acts of Paul and Thecla. 

There is no doubt, but that this book is apocryphal. 
It was so considered by all the Fathers, who have 
mentioned it. 

Tertullian says, respecting it, " But if any read 
the apocryphal books of Paul, and thence defend the 
right of women to teach and baptize, by the exam- 
ple of Thecla, let them consider, that a certain pres- 
byter of Asia, who forged that book, under the 
name of Paul, being convicted of forgery, confessed 
that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so left his 
place."* 

And Jerome, in his life of Luke, says, " The Acts 
of Paul and Thecla, with the whole story of the 
baptized lion, I reckon among the apocryphal Scrip- 
tures." 

And in the decree of Pope Gelasius, it is asserted, 
" That the Acts of Thecla and Paul are apocryphal." 

It is manifest, however, that the primitive Chris- 
tians gave credit to a story respecting Paul and 
Thecla, on which this book is founded : for it is often 
referred to, as a history well known, and commonly 
believed. 

Thus, Cyprian, or some ancient WTiter under his 
name, says, " Help us, O, Lord, as thou didst help 
the apostles, in their imprisonment, Thecla amidst 

* Tertuil. De Baptismo. 



293 



the flames, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter amidst 
the waves of the sea." 

And again, " Deliver me, O Lord, as thou didst 
deliver Thecla, when in the midst of the amphithea- 
tre, she was in conflict with the wild beasts." 

Eusebius mentions a woman by this name, but he 
places her long after the apostle Paul, and she is, 
therefore, supposed to be another person. 

Epiphanius, relates, " That w r hen Thecla met 
Paul, she determined against marriage, although 
she w^as then engaged to a very agreeable young 
man."* 

Augustixi] refers to the same thing, and says, " By 
a discourse of Paul's, at Iconium, he incited Thecla 
to a resolution of perpetual virginity, although she 
was then actually engaged to be married." 

Many others of the Fathers speak of Thecla, as of 
a person whose history was well known. 

And among the moderns, Baronius, Locrinus, and 
Grabe, look upon this history as true and genuine, 
written in the apostolic age, and containing nothing 
superstitious, or unsuitable to that time. But none 
have ventured to assert, that these Acts ought to 
have a place in the Canon. 

No doubt, the book now extant, is greatly altered 
from that ancient history, referred to by the Fathers ; 
and probably, the original story was founded on some 
tradition, w r hich had a foundation in truth; but what 
the truth is, it is impossible now r to discover among 
such a mass of fables, and ridiculous stories, as the 
book contains. As it now T stands, it contains numer- 

* Epiph. Hssr. lxviii. 

Bb2 



294 



ous things, which are false in fact ; others which are 
inconsistent with the Canonical Scriptures ; and some, 
totally incompatible with the true character of Paul. 
Moreover, it is favorable to several superstitious 
practices, which had no existence in the apostles* 
days ; and finally, the forgery was acknowledged, as 
it relates to the ancient Acts; and those now existing, 
cannot be more genuine than the original: but to 
these many things have been added, of a silly and su- 
perstitious kind. 



L 



SECTION XVI. 

NO PART OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANDED DOWN 
BY UNWRITTEN TRADITION. 

In the former part of this work, it was seen, that 
it was not only necessary to show r , that the Apocryphal 
writings had no right to a place in the Sacred Vo- 
lume, but that there was no additional revelation 
which had been handed down by oral tradition. The 
same necessity devolves upon us, in relation to the 
New Testament; for while it is pretty generally 
agreed, by all Christians, what books should be re- 
ceived into the Canon, there is a large Society w r hich 
strenuously maintains, that besides the revelation con- 
tained in the divine record, written by the apostles 
and their assistants, by the plenary inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit, there is a further revelation, consisting 
of such things as were received from the mouth of 
Christ himself while upon earth, or taught to the 
churches by his inspired apostles, which were not by 
them, nor in their time, committed to writing, but 
which have come down to us by unbroken tradition. 
The importance of this inquiry, is exceedingly ma- 
nifest ; for if, in addition to the written word, there 
are important doctrines, and necessary sacraments 
of the church, which have come down by tradition ; 
it would be a perilous thing for us to remain igno- 
rant of those things which God has enjoined, or to 
deprive ourselves of the benefits to be derived from 
those means of grace which he has instituted for the 



296 



edification and salvation of the church. But, seeing 
traditions are much more liable to alteration and cor- 
ruption than written documents, it is very necessary 
that we should be on our guard against imposition ; 
and if it is a duty to exercise much care and dili- 
gence in distinguishing between inspired books and 
such as are spurious, it cannot be less incumbent, to 
ascertain first, whether any part of God's revealed 
will has been handed down by tradition only ; and 
next, to learn accurately what those things are, which 
have been thus communicated, And as there are 
apocryphal books, which claim a place in the Ca- 
non ; so, doubtless there would be apocryphal tradi- 
tions, if any truths had been conveyed to the church, 
through this chanael. But if there be no satisfactory 
evidence of any such revelation having come down 
to us, nor any possibility of ascertaining what pro- 
ceeded from the apostles, and what from the fancy 
and superstition of men, then we are right in refus- 
ing the high claims of tradition, and adhering inflexi- 
bly to the written word, which is able, through faith, 
to make as wise unto salvation" 

This doctrine of traditions, is most convenient and 
favorable to the church of Rome, in all her controver- 
sies with Protestants, and others ; for whatever she 
may assert, as an article of faith, or teach as a part of 
Christian duty, although there be no vestige of it in 
the word of God, may readily be established by tra- 
dition. For as the church alone has the keeping of 
this body of oral law, she only is the proper judge of 
what it contains, and indeed can make it to suit her- 
self. If we should concede to the Romanists what 
they claim, on this point, the controversy with them, 



29? 



might well be brought to an end ; and all we should 
have to do, would be, to yield implicit faith to what- 
ever they might please to teach us. And even if we 
should be required to believe and practise, in direct 
opposition to the plain declarations of Holy Scrip- 
ture ; yet, as the true interpretation of Scripture, on 
this plan, is only in the hands of the infallible head of 
the church, and is indeed understood by means of 
unwritten traditions, we must not trust to our own 
understanding in the most evident matters, nor even 
to our own senses, although several of them should 
concur in giving us notice of some fact. Now, be- 
fore we give ourselves up to be led blindly, in such 
a way as this, it behoves us, diligently and impartial- 
ly to inquire, whether God has required of us, this im- 
plicit submission to men. We ought to be assured, 
that their authority over our faith and conscience, 
has a divine warrant for its exercise ; and especially, 
we should be satisfied, on sufficient grounds, that 
these unwritten traditions, on which the whole fabric 
rests, are truly the commands of God ; for if they are 
not, we have the highest authority for rejecting them. 
And if their claim to a divine origin cannot be made 
out clearly, they cannot, in reason, bind us to obedi- 
ence ; for, when God gives a law, he promulgates it 
with sufficient clearness, that all whom it concerns, 
may know what is required of them. 

To exhibit fairly, the true point of controversy on 
this subject, it will be requisite to make several pre- 
liminary observations, that it may be clearly under- 
stood what we admit, and what we deny. 

1. In the first place, then, it is readily admitted, 
that a law revealed from Heaven and communicated 



298 



to us, orally, with clear evidence of its origin, is as 
binding, as if written ever so often. When God ut- 
tered the ten commandments, on Mount Sinai, in the 
midst of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as 
obligatory upon the hearers, as after He had written 
them on tables of stone. 

It is a dictate of common sense, that it is a matter 
of indifference, how a divine revelation is communi- 
cated, provided it come to us properly authenticated. 

2. Again, it is conceded, that for a long time, there 
was no other method of transmitting the revelations 
received from Heaven, from generation to genera- 
tion, but by oral tradition, and such external memo- 
rials, as aided in keeping up the remembrance of im- 
portant transactions. As far as appears, books w r ere 
unknown, and letters not in use, until a considerable 
time after the flood. During the long period which 
preceded the time of Moses, all revelations must have 
been handed down by tradition. But, while this con- 
cession is willingly made, it ought, in connexion, to 
be remarked, that this mode was then used, because 
no other existed ; and that, in the early ages of the 
w T orld, the longevity of the patriarchs, rendered that 
a comparatively safe channel of communication, 
which would now be most uncertain ; and notwith- 
standing this advantage, the fact was, that in every 
instance, as far as we are informed, in which divine 
truth was committed to tradition, it was utterly lost ; 
or soon became so corrupted by foreign mixtures, 
that it was impossible to ascertain what part of the 
mass contained a revelation from God. It is there- 
fore the plausible opinion of some, that writing was 
revealed from heaven, for the very purpose of avoid- 



299 



ing the evil which had been experienced, and that 
there might be a certain vehicle for all divine com- 
munications : and it is certain, that all that we know of 
the history of alphabetical writing, leads us to con- 
nect its origin with the commencement of written 

REVELATIOXS. 

It is, therefore, not an improbable supposition, that 
God taught letters to Moses, for the express purpose 
of conveying, by this means, his laws, to distant ages, 
without alteration ; and it deserves to be well con- 
sidered, that after the command was given to Moses, 
to write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to 
him, nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been 
shown in the former part of this work. 

3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especially 
when connected with external memorials* is sufficient 
to transmit, through a long lapse of time, the know- 
ledge of particular events, or of transactions of a 
very simple nature. 

Thus, it may be admitted, that if the gospels had 
not come down to us, we might by tradition be as- 
sured, that Christ instituted the eucharist, as a memo- 
rial of his death ; for, from the time of its institution, 
it has, in every successive age, and in many coun- 
tries, been celebrated to perpetuate the remembrance 
of that event. And it is not credible, that such a 
tradition should be uniform at all times, and every 
where, and be connected with the same external 
rite, if it was not founded in fact. Besides, the thing 
handed down, in this instance, is so simple in its na- 
ture, that there was no room for mistake. 

There is one fact, for the truth of which, we de- 
pend entirely on tradition, so far as external testimony 



300 



is concerned, and that is the truth which in this 
work we have been attempting to establish, that the 
books of the New Testament were written by the 
persons under whose names they have come down 
to us. This fact is incapable of being proved from 
the scriptures, because we must first be assured that 
they contain the testimony of inspired men, before we 
can prove any thing by them. The point to be esta- 
blished here, is, that the apostles wrote these books. 
If it were ever so often asserted in a book, that a 
certain person was its author, this would not be sat- 
isfactory evidence of its genuineness, because any 
impostor can write what falsehoods he pleases in a 
book, and may ascribe it to w r hom he will ; as in 
fact, many have written spurious works, and ascribed 
them to the apostles. We must, therefore, have the 
testimony of those who had the opportunity of judg- 
ing of the fact, given either explicitly, or implicitly. 
In most cases, where a book is published under the 
name of some certain author, in the country in which 
he lived and was known, a general, silent acquies- 
cence in the fact, by the people of that age and 
country, with the consent of all that came after them, 
may be considered as satisfactory evidence of the 
genuineness of such book. But where much depends 
on the certainty of the fact in question, it is necessa- 
ry to have positive testimony ; and in order that it 
be satisfactory, it should be universal, and uncontra- 
dicted. When, therefore, a certain volume is ex- 
pressly received as the work of certain individuals, 
by all who lived at or near the time when it was pub- 
lished, and all succeeding writings concur in ascribing 
it to the same persons, and not a solitary voice is 



301 



raised in contradiction, the evidence of its genuine- 
ness seems to be as complete, as the nature of the 
case admits. Just such is the evidence of the gen- 
uineness of the books of the New Testament ; or. 
at least, of most of them. It is, however, the evi- 
dence of tradition ; but of such a tradition, as is abun- 
dantly sufficient to establish a fact of this sort. The 
thing attested is most simple in its nature, and not 
liable to be misunderstood. This necessity of tradi- 
tion to establish the authenticity of the books of the 
New Testament, has been made a great handle of. 
by the Romanists, in the defence of their favorite 
doctrine. They pretend, that the point -which we 
have here conceded, is all that is necessary to estab- 
lish their whole system, on the firmest foundation. 
They argue, that if we must receive the Scripture? 
themselves, by tradition, much more other things. 
Indeed, they ascribe all the authority which the 
Scriptures possess, to the testimony of the church, 
without which, they assert, that they would deserve 
no more credit than any other writings. But, because 
a single fact, incapable of proof in any other way, 
must be received by tradition, it does not follow, that 
numerous other matters which might easily have 
been recorded, must be learned in the same man- 
ner. Because a document requires oral testimony 
to establish its authenticity, it is not therefore ne- 
cessary to prove the truth of the matters con- 
tained in that record, by the same means. The 
very purpose of written records, is, to prevent the 
necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of tradi- 
tion; and as to the allegation, that the Scriptures 
owe their authority to the church, it amounts to no 

c c 



302 



more than this, which wo freely admit, that it is by 
the testimony of the early Fathers, that we are as- 
sured that these writings are the productions of the 
apostles ; and it is true, that most of those witnesses 
who have given testimony, were members of the 
Catholic Church. But our confidence in their testi- 
mony, on this point, is not because they were mem- 
bers of the church, but because they lived in times 
and circumstances, favourable to an accurate know- 
ledge of the fact which they report. And according- 
ly, we admit the testimony of those who were out 
of the church ; yea, of its bitterest enemies, to the 
same fact, and on some accounts, judge it to be the 
most unexceptionable. While we w 7 eigh this evi- 
dence, it would be absurd to make its validity de* 
pend on the witnesses being members of the church ; 
for that would be to determine, that the church was 
divine and infallible, before we had ascertained that 
the Scriptures w r ere the word of God. Surely, if on 
examination, it had turned out, that the Scriptures 
were not inspired, the authority of the Christian 
church would have been worth nothing ; and there- 
fore, previously to the decision on this point, we can- 
not defer any thing to the authority of the church. 
The truth is, that the witnesses being of the church, 
is, in this inquiry, merely an incidental circumstance. 
A sufficient number of competent and credible wit- 
nesses, not of the church, would establish the fact just 
as well as those who have given testimony ; and, as 
was before observed, such testimony, on the score of 
freedom from all partiality, has the advantage. The 
testimony of Jews and Heathen, has, on this account, 
been demanded by infidels, and has been sought for 



303 



with avidity by the defenders of Christianity, and in 
the view of all considerate men, is of great weight. 
But it is not just to ascribe the authority of these 
books to the church, because the greater number of 
the witnesses of their apostolical origin, were mem- 
bers of the church. The law enacted by the su- 
preme legislature of the state, does not owe its au- 
thority to the men who attest its genuineness. It is 
true, it would not be known certainly to be a law, 
without the attestation, but it would be absurd to as- 
cribe the authority of the law to the persons whose 
testimony proved that it was really a law of the 
state. The cases are exactly parallel. The Scrip- 
tures cannot owe their authority to the church, for 
without them, the church can have no authority; 
and although she may, and does give ample testi- 
mony in favour of their divine origin, this confers no 
authority on them ; it only proves to us, that they 
have authority, which is derived from the spirit of 
God, by whom they were indited. It is truly won- 
derful, how this plain case has been perplexed and 
darkened, by the artifice and sophistry of the writers 
of the church of Rome. 

But if it be insisted, that if we admit tradition as 
sufficient evidence of a fact in one case, we ought to 
do so in every other, where the tradition is as clear. 
We answer, that to this we have no objection, pro- 
vided this species of proof be as necessary, and as 
clear in the one case as the other. Let any other 
fact be shown to be as fully attested, as the genuine- 
ness of the books of the New Testament, and to 
need this kind of proof as much, and we will not 
hesitate to receive as true, whatever may be the 



304 



consequence. But the very fact which we have 
been considering, seems to raise a strong presump- 
tion against the necessity of depending on tradition 
for any thing else. Why were these books written? 
Was it not to convey to us, and to all future ages, 
the revelations of God to man? Because it is neces- 
sary to authenticate, by testimony, this record, must 
we depend on the same testimony for information on 
the points of which the record treats? Surely not. 
For the proof of these we have nothing to do, but 
refer to the document itself: otherwise, the posses- 
sion of written records would be useless. If, indeed, 
a doubt should arise about the meaning of something 
in the record, it would not be unreasonable to inquire, 
how it had been understood and practised on, by 
those who received it at first; but if we should find 
a society acting in direct opposition to a written 
charter, on which their existence depended, and pre- 
tending to prove that they were right, by appealing 
from the written documents to vague traditions, all 
sensible men, not interested, would judge that the 
case was a very suspicious one. 

4. We are, moreover, ready to acknowledge, that 
the gospel was, at first, for several years communi- 
cated orally, by the apostles and their assistants. The 
churches .when first planted, had no written gospels; 
they received the same truths, now contained in the 
gospels and epistles, by the preaching of the apostles 
and others; and, doubtless, were as well instructed as 
those churches which have had possession of the 
whole inspired volume. And what they had thus 
received, without book, they could communicate to 
others; and thus, if the gospels and epistles had never 



305 



been written, the Christian religion might have been 
transmitted from generation to generation. Then it 
may be asked, why the writing of these books should 
hinder the transmission of many things which might 
not be contained in them, to future generations ? for 
it cannot be doubted that many things were said and 
done by Christ, w T hich were not recorded in the gos- 
pels ; and there is reason to think, that the apostles 
were much fuller in their sermons, than in their 
writings ; and that they established many rules for 
the good order and government of the church, of 
which, we have in their epistles, either no account, 
or only brief hints; which though they might be rea- 
dily understood by those who had received their ver- 
bal instructions, are insufficient, without tradition, to 
teach us what rules and institutions were established 
in the churches, by apostolical authority. Now, if 
these were transmitted by tradition, to the next gen- 
eration, and by them to the following, and so on, in 
an uninterrupted series until the present time, are we 
not as much bound to receive such traditions, and 
be governed by them, as by the written word ? 

I have now presented the argument in favor of tra- 
ditions in the strongest light, in which I am able to 
place it ; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that 
it wears at first sight, a face of plausibility : and if 
the whole case as here stated, could be made out with 
satisfactory evidence, I think we should be constrain- 
ed to receive, to some extent, this oral law of the 
Romish church. But before any man can reasona- 
bly be required to rest his faith on tradition, he has 
a right to be satisfied on several important points ; 
as, whether it was the purpose of God to permit any 
c c 2 



306 



part of the revelation intended for the use of the 
church, in all future ages, to be handed down by 
tradition. For, as he directed every thing in the law 
given at Mount Sinai, intended to regulate the faith 
and practice of the Israelites, to be committed to writ- 
ing by Moses, it is no how improbable that the same 
plan was pursued, in regard to the waitings of the 
New Covenant ; especially, when it is considered how 
much superior written communications are to verbal, 
as it respects accuracy. When a channel for con- 
veying the truth had been provided, calculated to 
preserve all communications from corruption; and 
when it is acknowledged, that this was used for a 
part of the matter to be transmitted, how can it be 
accounted for, that another part should be committed 
to the uncertainty of oral tradition ? Why not com- 
mit the whole to waiting? 

But it is incumbent on the advocates of tradition 
to show by undoubted proofs, that what they say has 
come dow 7 n by tradition, was really received from 
the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his apos- 
tles. As they wish to claim for this rule an autho- 
rity fully equal to that which is given to the Scrip- 
tures, they ought to be able to produce the very 
words, in which these instructions were given. But 
this they do not pretend to do. It may be said, in- 
deed, that words and sentences, in their just order 
and connexion, cannot be conveyed by tradition, and 
therefore this demand is unreasonable. I answer, that 
this allegation is most true, but instead of making in 
favor of traditions, it is a strong argument to prove, 
that nothing thus received, can be of equal certainty 
and authoritv with the written w r ord. When an arti- 



307 



cle of faith is proposed, which is contained in the 
Scriptures, we can turn to the sacred text, and read 
the words of Christ and his apostles : and may be as- 
sured, that they express the truth contained in said 
article ; but if an article of faith be asserted to have 
come down by tradition, we have no opportunity of 
knowing the words in which it was expressed: for, 
w T hile it is pretended that the doctrine or instruction 
has reached us, the words have been lost : for what 
advocate of tradition is able, in any single case, to 
furnish us with the words of any divine revelation, 
which is not contained in the Sacred Scriptures ? 

But it is essential to the credit of traditions, that it 
be proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or 
institutions of worship, said to be received from this 
source, have indeed been handed down without al- 
teration or corruption, from Christ and his apostles. 
It is not sufficient that they have been long received 
and have now the sanction of the belief and practice 
of the w T hole Catholic church ; it ought to be shown, 
that they have always, from the very days of the 
apostles, been x'eceived with universal consent. We 
know 7 that the church has undergone many vicissi- 
tudes ; that she has sometimes been almost extirpated 
by the sword of persecution; has been overrun with 
dangerous errors ; has been overwhelmed with the 
darkness of Gothic ignorance ; and we believe, has 
greatly apostatized from purity of doctrine and wor- 
ship ; and this accords w T ith the prophecy of Paul, 
who clearly intimates, that a time would come, 
w T hen there should be a falling away. Now it may 
have happened, that during this long period of adver- 
sity, heresy, darkness, and corruption, many things 



308 



may have crept in, and may have obtained an exten- 
sive and firm footing, which were totally unknown 
in the days of the apostles, or in the primitive church ; 
and that this has in fact occurred, we are not left to 
conjecture. It is a matter of historical record, which 
cannot be disputed, and which is not denied even by 
the Romanists themselves. Who that is not insane 
with prejudice, could persuade himself, that all the 
opinions, rites and ceremonies, which now exist in 
the Romish church, were prevalent in the times of the 
apostles, and were received from them by tradition ? 
Besides, there is a multitude of other things re- 
ceived and held to be important, by the church of 
Rome, of w T hich there is no vestige in the Scrip- 
tures, and concerning which there is no early tradi- 
tion. Many rules and ceremonies which have been 
long in use, can be traced to their commencement, 
at a period much later than that of the apostles. Now 
amidst such a mass of traditions, how can it be as- 
certained which have comedown from Christ and his 
apostles? Perhaps we shall be told, that the infalli- 
ble head of the church can determine, with certainty 
what we ought to believe and practice ; but if there 
be on earth an infallible judge, we have no need of 
traditions. All that is necessary, is, for this person 
to establish his claim to infallibility, and then all will 
be as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they 
were expressly written in the Holy Scriptures. On 
this ground the controversy between the Romanists 
and Protestants first commenced. The defenders of 
the old system appealed to the authority of the Pope, 
and the infallibility of the church, but as it was im- 
possible to sustain themselves by Scripture, on these 



309 



points, they found it very convenient to have recourse 
to the doctrine of unwritten traditions, which they 
pretended had been handed down from Christ and 
his apostles. Grant them this, and there is no doc- 
trine, however absurd, which may not be supported. 
Grant them this, and it will be in vain to appeal any 
more to the Sacred Scriptures, as a standard of truth ; 
for this traditionary law, not only inculcates what is 
not found in the Scriptures, but teaches the only true 
interpretation of Scripture. Traditions may, there- 
fore, be considered as the bulwark of the Romish 
church. Concede to them the ground which they 
assume, and the whole body of their ceremonial laws, 
and unscriptural practices, are safe. For as they 
can feign what traditions they please, having the 
keeping of them entirely in their own hands, they 
are prepared to defend every part of their system : 
but take this away from them, and their defence is 
gone. Bring them to the ground of clear Scriptural 
testimony, and they are weak ; for it is manifest, 
that the Bible knows nothing of their monstrous ac- 
cumulation of superstitious rites. 

The Council of Trent, therefore, early in their ses- 
sions, made a decree on this subject, in which, after 
recognizing the Scriptures, they add. — " Nee non tra- 
ditiones ipsas, turn adfidem, turn ad mores pertinentes 
tanquam vel oretenus a Chris to, vel a spiritu sancto, 
dictatus et continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica 
conservatas, pari pittatis affectu et reverentia suscipit 
ac veneratur." The meaning of which is, that The 
Holy Synod receives and venerates traditions relat- 
ing both to faith and manners, as proceeding from 
the mouth of Christ himself, or as dictated bv the 



310 



Holy Spirit, and preserved in an uninterrupted suc- 
cession in the Catholic church, with equal affection 
and reverence, as the written Scriptures ! This was 
the first decree of the fourth Session of this famous 
Council. 

Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to 
consider some of the other arguments, which the Ro- 
manists bring forward in support of their beloved 
traditions. 

And the first is imposing, as it is derived from the 
express declarations of Scripture, in which we are 
exhorted to obey traditions. " Now ice command you 
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus that ye with- 
draw yourselves from every brother that walketh disor- 
derly, and not after the tradition which he received of 
us" Here Paul makes express mention of tradition. 
And in the preceding chapter, " Therefore brethren 
standfast and hold the traditions which ye have been 
taught ichether by word, or our Epistle" Now all 
that is necessary to refute the argument derived from 
these and such like passages, where the word tradi- 
tions is used, is to observe, that Paul employs this 
word in a very extensive sense, to signify whatever 
doctrines or institutions he had delivered to the 
churches, whether by his preaching or writing. And 
in the verse first cited, he evidently refers to what he 
had said to them in his First Epistle, for the words 
following are, " For yourselves know how ye ought to 
follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly 
among you; neither did we eat any man's bread for 
nought, &c." Now, this tradition which he com- 

2 Thes. iii. 6, 7, 11, 15, 1 Thes. iv. 11. 



311 



manded the Thessalonians to obey, was contained in 
the former epistle addressed to them, where it is said, 
" And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own 
business, and to work with your own hands, as toe 
commanded you." And in the quotation from the 2d 
chapter, it is clear, that by traditions, the apostle did 
not mean merely oral communications, for he ex- 
plains himself, by saying, " whether by word or Epistle." 
It is not denied, that Paul delivered many things oral- 
ly to the churches, as has been already acknowledg- 
ed ; all the instructions given to the churches, first 
planted, were oral, for as yet no gospels nor epistles 
were written ; but the true point in dispute, is, wheth- 
er any article of faith, or any important institution, 
thus originally communicated, was omitted, when the 
books of the New Testament were written by divine 
inspiration 1 Whether, while a part of the revelation 
of God, for the use of his church, was committed to 
writing, another important part was left to be hand- 
ed down by tradition ? That the word tradition, as 
used by Paul, makes nothing in favor of the doctrine 
of the Romish church, is evident, because by this 
word he commonly means such things as were dis- 
tinctly recorded in the Scriptures. Thus, in his first 
Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, " For I delivered 
unto you first of all," where the word for transmitting 
by tradition, is used : but what were those things 
which he had by tradition communicated to them ? 
He informs us in the next words, " How that Christ 
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that 

1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. 



312 



he teas buried, and that he rose again the third day. 
according to the Scriptures" 

It is manifest, therefore, that the argument derived 
from the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but 
a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of 
fair examination. 

2. Their next, and principal argument, is derived 
from the frequent declarations of the early Fathers, 
in favor of tradition. Cyprian, refers those who 
might be in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the holy 
tradition, received from Christ and his apostles : and 
Irenaeus, as cited by Eusebius, says, " That those 
things which he heard Polycarp relate concerning 
Christ, his virtues and his doctrines, which he had 
learned from converse with the apostles, he had in- 
scribed on his heart, and not on paper." But after 
a few sentences, he informs us, " That all which he 
had heard from them was in accordance with the 
Scriptures, (nayr* o-uww* rats yga.<p>Ms.) This sentence of 
Irenaeus is of great importance, for it teaches us how 
the Fathers understood this subject. They received 
such traditions as came down through pious men 
from the apostles, but they compared them with the 
Scriptures : even then the Scriptures were the stand- 
ard by which all traditions must be judged. Irenaeus 
insinuates, plainly enough, that if what he had heard 
from Polycarp, had not been in accordance with the 
Scriptures, he would not have considered it as de- 
serving attention. 

But the same Irenaeus, and Tertullian, have spoken 
in still stronger terms, in favor of tradition, in their 

Lib. v. c. 20, 



313 

controversies with heretics. The former, in the third 
chapter, of the third book of his work on heresies* 
says, " The tradition of the apostles is manifest, in 
the whole world. In the church it is exposed to the 
view of all, who are willing to know the truth." And 
in the fourth chapter, " It is not necessary to seek the 
truth from others, which can easily be acquired from 
the church, since the blessed apostles have deposited 
in her, most fully, all those truths which are needful. 
so that every one who will, may drink of the water 
of life. This is the true door of life, and all others 
are thieves and robbers ; them we should avoid : but 
those things which appertain to the church, we should 
delight in with great diligence, and should lay hold 
of the tradition of truth. For what if the apostles had 
left us no writings, ought we not to follow the order 
of traditions, which they, to whom the churches were 
committed, have delivered to us? To which institu- 
tion, many barbarous nations have submitted, having 
neither letters nor ink, but having the tradition of the 
apostLs, inscribed on their hearts ; which also they 
follow." 

And Tertullian, in his work, concerning Prescrip- 
tions, says, " If Christ commissioned certain persons 
to preach his gospel, then certainly none should be 
received as preachers, except those appointed to office 
by him. And as they preached what Christ reveal- 
ed unto them, what they taught can only be know T n ? 
by applying to the churches, which the apostles 
planted, by preaching to them, whether viva voce, or 
by their epistles. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees 
with that held by the apostolical churches, is to be 
considered as true, and held fast, because the churches 

D d 



314 



received it from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, 
and Christ from God; but all other doctrine, which 
is repugnant to that received by the churches, 
should be rejected as false, as being repugnant to 
that truth taught by the apostles, by Christ, and by 
God." 

These declarations, from such men, in favour of tra- 
dition, seem at first view, to be altogether favourable 
to the doctrine of the church of Rome; but we de- 
spair not of being able to convince the candid reader, 
that when the occasion on which these things were 
said, and the character and opinions of the persons 
against whom these Fathers wrote, are considered, 
their testimony, instead of making against the suffi- 
ciency of the Scriptures, will be found corroborative 
of the opinions which we maintain. They do not 
appeal to tradition, let it be observed, for confirma- 
tion of articles of faith, not contained in the Scrip- 
tures; but the doctrines which they are defend- 
ing, are among the most fundamental, contained in 
the New Testament. They are precisely the doc- 
trines which are comprehended in the Apostle's 
Creed. Now, to appeal to tradition for the con- 
firmation of such doctrines as these, never can be of 
any force to prove, that other doctrines, not contain- 
ed in the scriptures, may be established by tradition. 
But it may be asked, if those doctrines concerning 
which they disputed, are plainly inculcated in the 
New Testament, why have recourse to tradition? 
Why not appeal, at once, to the Scriptures? To 
which I would answer, that Irenseus does little else, 
in the third, fourth, and fifth books of his work, than 
confirm the truth by a copious citation of Scripture. 



315 



Nothing can be more manifest, therefore, than that 
the matters in dispute were not such as could only 
be proved by tradition, but they were such truths as 
lie at the very foundation of the Christian religion, 
and to record which, the gospels and epistles were 
written. But still the question returns, why did these 
Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when they had 
testimony so full and decisive from the Scriptures ? 
The answer to this question will show us, in the 
clearest manner, that the views of Irenaeus and Ter- 
tullian, relative to the Scriptures and to traditions, 
were such as are now held by Protestants, and that 
the heretics whom they opposed, occupied nearly the 
same ground as the Romanists now do, in this con- 
troversy. These heretics, either rejected the Scrip- 
tures as being an insufficient rule, and asserted that 
they were not competent for the decision of such 
matters; or they so corrupted them, that it was use- 
less to appeal to them for proof; for testimonies de- 
rived from the genuine Scriptures, they would not 
admit. This is not conjecture ; for Irenasus has ex- 
plicitly stated the case. "When," says he, "they 
are confuted from the Scriptures themselves, they al- 
lege, that they are not correct, or not of authority, 
and assert that they speak so variously, that the truth 
cannot be established by them, without tradition; 
for say they, it was handed down, not by letters, but 
viva vocer And Tertullian says, " This heresy does 
not receive some parts of the Scriptures ; and what 
they do receive, is so corrupted by additions, or de- 
tractions, to suit their own doctrine, that they cannot 
be said to receive the Scriptures entire, &c." Again : 
M They pretend that the apostles did not wish to re- 



316 



veal all things plainly, for while they made known 
certain truths to all, there were others, which they 
communicated secretly, and to a few persons, which 
they say, the apostle Paul meant, by the depositum" 

From these quotations, the reason why these Fa- 
thers had recourse to traditions, is most manifest. It 
was the only ground on which these heretics could 
be met; for they denied, (as the Romanists now do,) 
that the Scriptures were a certain and sufficient 
standard of truth. They said, that their meaning 
could not be ascertained without tradition ; that they 
were defective ; and also, that there were some parts 
which they did not acknowledge ; and they held r 
moreover, that some things were never committed 
to writing, but designedly handed down by tradition. 
We did not, indeed, expect to find the exact doctrine 
of the Romanists respecting the Scriptures and tra- 
dition, at so early a period of the church : but unfor- 
tunately for their cause, the persons who are found 
agreeing with them, are gross heretics. 

It is now easy to see, why the appeal was made 
by the Fathers, to universal tradition ; and they show T , 
that in their day, tradition and Scripture were har- 
monious ; and that if the apostles had written no- 
thing, the consent of all the churches would be suffi- 
cient to prove, that the doctrines which they defend- 
ed, were received from the apostles Instead, there- 
fore, of using tradition, as the Romanists do, to prove 
some doctrine not contained in the Scripture, they 
used it merely to confirm the truths, which are ma- 
nifestly contained in the New Testament. They 

Tim. vi. 20, 



317 



were at no loss for Scripture testimonies to establish 
these truths, but they were disputing with men who 
did not admit the authority of the Scriptures to be 
decisive, and therefore they appeal to universal tra- 
dition, in support of them. It is said, indeed, by Ire- 
naeus, that many barbarous nations had received the 
faith, among whom letters and writing were unknown. 
They must, therefore, it is concluded, have received 
it from tradition. Very good. Just as heathen tribes 
now receive, from those missionaries who preach the 
gospel to them, a short summary of the most import- 
ant doctrines of the New Testament. The truths 
which these barbarous nations received, were not 
different from those contained in the Sacred Scrip- 
tures, but the very same, taught in a short compre- 
hensive creed. In fact, we have here, the true ori- 
gin of that symbol of doctrine, commonly called, The 
Apostles' Creed, which was a summary of Christi- 
anity, used in very early times, in the instruction of 
those who were not able to read the New Testament, 
or who had, as yet, no access to it. That Irenaeus 
actually referred, in the passage alluded to, to these 
elementary doctrines, he explicitly informs us ; for, 
immediately after mentioning these barbarous na- 
tions, who were destitute of " letters and ink," he 
adds, "Believing in one God, the maker of heaven 
and earth, and all things which are therein ; and in 
Jesus Christ the Son of God, who for his exceeding 
great love to his creatures, submitted to be born of 
a virgin, by himself uniting man to God ; and having 
suffered under Pontius Pilate, and having risen again, 
was received into heaven ; about to come again in 
glory : the Saviour of those who are saved, and the 
d d 2 



318 



judge of those who are judged; and will send into 
eternal fire, the perverters of the truth, and the de- 
spisers of his Father, and of his coming ; which bar- 
barians, if any one should announce to them the doc- 
trines invented by heretics, stopping their ears, they 
would fly far aw^ay from them. Thus, the ancient 
apostolical tradition does not sanction those mon- 
strous opinions inculcated by heretics." 

In the second chapter, of the first book of the same 
w r ork, Irenseus describes the apostolical doctrine, 
thus : " The church," says he, " planted by the apos- 
tles and their disciples throughout the w r hole world, 
even to the ends of the earth, receives the same 
faith ; which is, In one God Almighty, the Father, 
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things 
which are therein ; in one Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God, incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy 
Spirit, who by the prophets, predicted the good will 
of God ; his advent ; his generation of a virgin ; his 
passion, and resurrection from the dead ; and the as- 
cension in the flesh of our beloved Lord Christ Jesus ; 
and his coming again from heaven, in the glory of 
his Father, as our Lord Jesus Christ ; our God, Sa- 
viour, and King; before whom, according to the 
good pleasure of the Father invisible, every knee 
shall bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, 
and things under the earth, and every tongue shall 
confess the justice of his judgments towards all, when 
he will send wicked spirits, fallen and apostate angels, 
and blaspheming men, into eternal fire ; but the just 
and upright who have kept his precepts, and perse- 
vered in his love, some indeed from the beginning, 
and others as having received the gift of repentance, 



319 



he will surround with eternal glory. This faith, the 
church spread over the whole world, diligently keeps, 
as if she inhabited one house, and believes in it, as if 
possessing but one soul and one heart; and in accord- 
ance with the same, she teaches and preaches, as 
with one mouth. Although, the languages Which are 
in the world are different, yet there is one and the 
same tradition. Neither do the churches which are 
founded in Germany, believe differently, from those 
in Italy, nor from those among the Celts, nor from 
those in the east, nor from those which are in Egypt, 
or in Lybia, or in the middle of the world. But as 
the Sun is one and the same through the whole 
world, so the light and preaching of the truth, every- 
where shines, and illuminates all men, w r ho are wil- 
ling to come to the know-ledge of the truth, &c." 

This then is the apostolical tradition, of which 
these Fathers speak so magnificently. Not any -secret 
doctrine, never committed to writing; not any arti- 
cles of faith, or rites of worship, of w r hich no vestige 
can be found in the Bible ; but the plain, prominent, 
fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion : the 
very doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed. 
That the preaching of the gospel preceded the cir- 
culation of the Scriptures, w r e admit, but. this preach- 
ing we insist, and have proved, contained nothing 
different from that which is written in the gospels 
and epistles. 

Tertullian, speaks to the same purpose, and fur- 
nishes us with another summary of the common 
faith of primitive Christians : " The rule of faith/ 9 
says he, " is that by w 7 hich it is believed, that there is 
no more than one God, and no other beside the Crea- 



320 



tor of the world, who produced all things out of no- 
thing, by his Word, first of all sent forth, which 
Word, is called his son; was seen under different 
forms by the patriarchs ; was always heard by the 
prophets; and finally, by the Spirit and Power of 
God, being conceived by the Virgin Mary, became 
flesh in her womb. Jesus Christ having thus become 
man, published a new law T , and a new promise of the 
kingdom of heaven ; was crucified ; rose again the 
third day ; was caught up into heaven : sat down on 
the right hand of God the Father ; sent, as his sub- 
stitute, the Power of the Holy Spirit, to influence 
those w r ho believe ; w 7 ill come again in glory to take 
his Saints to the fruition of eternal life and of the 
celestial promises; and to adjudge the profane to 
eternal fire ; at which time, there will be a resusci- 
tation of both parts, and the flesh will be restored. 
This rule of faith was instituted by Christ, and is 
questioned by none but heretics, and such as teach 
those things which make heretics.'** 

These are the apostolical traditions which were 
universally received; the very plainest, and most 
fundamental doctrines of the Christian Religion. 
w T hich are written amply in every gospel, and recog- 
nized fully, in every epistle. Thus far then, it does 
not appear that any thing was left to unwritten tra- 
dition, to be communicated to future ages; for those 
very truths which were at first delivered orally by 
the apostles, were afterwards recorded by inspira- 
tion; and when the preachers of the gospel instructed 
the ignorant, who were unacquainted with letters, 

* Tertull. De Praescriptionibus. 



321 



they taught them, precisely, but in a summary way, 
what is written in the New Testament. 

3. Another argument, depended on by the ad- 
vocates of tradition, is derived from the fact, that 
there are some doctrines, not expressly mentioned in 
Scripture, which are universally inculcated by the 
Fathers, which all true Christians have received as 
articles of faith, in all succeeding ages, and which 
are not denied even by protestants themselves. To 
this class belong, the doctrine of the Trinity ; the 
doctrine of the Son being of the same substance as 
the Father : the deity of the Holy Spirit : his pro- 
ceeding from the Father and the Son : the two natures 
in Christ constituting one person ; the baptism of in- 
fants ; the religious observance of the Lord's day, 
&c. Now, in regard to these articles of religion, we 
observe, that although they are not contained in 
Scripture, in so many words, they may be derived 
from Scripture, by legitimate inference; and conclu- 
sions fairly deduced from the declarations of the w 7 ord 
of God, are as truly parts of divine revelation, as if 
they w r ere expressly taught in the Sacred volume. 
All the articles mentioned above, are capable of satis- 
factory proof from Scripture ; and if we did not 
find them taught there, we should feel under no obli- 
gation to receive them. We do not deny, however, 
that the universal consent, and uniform practice of 
the primitive church, ought to have great weight in 
confirming our faith in important doctrines, and in 
satisfying us that certain things not explicitly men- 
tioned in Scripture were practised by the apostles. 
Although, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the essen- 
tial deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, are doctrines 



322 



very plainly taught in the New Testament, yet in a 
matter of such vast importance, it cannot but afford 
satisfaction to every sincere inquirer, to find that 
these doctrines were universally believed by the Fa- 
thers, to be taught in the writings of the apostles. 

And, although, there are principles and facts re- 
corded in the New Testament, from which it can be 
fairly concluded, that the first day of the week was 
set apart for public worship, and that the infants of 
believers were, from the beginning, baptized, and 
thus connected with the visible church ; yet, as these 
institutions are not so expressly included in Scrip- 
ture, as to remove all uncertainty, the fact of their 
universal observance, in the primitive church, has, 
deservedly, great influence in convincing us, that our 
reasonings and inferences from Scriptural principles, 
are correct. But why should we be required 
to receive these things merely on the authority 
of tradition, when the Fathers themselves, appealed 
for their truth to the infallible rule contained in the 
New Testament 1 Thus, on the subject of infant 
baptism, which the Romanists pretend is derived 
solely from tradition, we find the Fathers appealing 
not only to universal practice and apostolical tradi- 
tion, but frequently, to the words of Scripture, in 
which, they believed that the practice was implicitly 
authorized. Irenseus, Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, 
Ambrose, and Chrysostom, do all appeal to Scrip- 
ture, when treating this subject, although they do, in- 
deed, lay great stress on the derivation of this prac- 
tice from the apostles, by undoubted tradition. It is 
not denied, however, that after some time, an undue 
deference was paid to traditions. It will be shown 



323 



hereafter, that many were misled from the simplicity 
of the gospel by this very means. By yielding too 
ready an assent to traditions, they were led to adopt 
false opinions, some of which were directly repug- 
nant to the written w 7 ord. It can have no w T eight 
with us, therefore, to adduce such a writer as Epi- 
phanius, extolling tradition ; for it can be proved, that 
from this source he imbibed many foolish notions, 
and fabulous stories, which the more impartial among 
the Romanists, are as far from receiving as we are. 
Nor, do we feel bound, on this subject, to adopt all 
the opinions any where found in the writings of Ori- 
gen, Basil, Augustine, &c. ; for we are persuaded, 
thas this was one of the errors of antiquity, and that 
it was prolific of numerous evils, by which the church 
of God became greatly corrupted, in after times. But 
it answers no purpose to the Romish church, to plead 
these authorities ; for, they themselves do not receive 
as articles of faith or parts of divine worship, all that 
these Fathers derived from tradition. The principle 
of protestants ever has been, that the Scriptures con- 
tain all things necessary to guide the faith and prac- 
tice of believers; and they feel under no obligations 
to receive any article of religion, which cannot be 
proved to be contained in the Sacred volume. If, in 
the explanation of Scripture, light can be derived 
from tradition, or the universal opinion or practice of 
the primitive church, they are very willing to avail 
themselves of it ; as they are, to derive aid from any 
other quarter : but since they are convinced, that the 
Fathers were fallible men, and actually fell into ma- 
ny mistakes, it would be folly to build their faith on 
their opinions ; much more to adopt their errors, 



324 



knowing them to be such. " The Bible is the Re- 
ligion of Protestants. 

The fact is, that the Fathers generally depended 
on Scripture for the proof of their doctrines ; and 
called in the aid of tradition, only to confirm the doc- 
trines which they derived from the written word. 
And here it is important to remark, that tradition, in 
the earlier and purer times of the church, w r as a very 
different thing from what it is now. Men who lived 
within one or two hundred years of the apostles, 
had an opportunity of ascertaining their opinions 
and practices, from tradition, with a degree of cer- 
tainty, which is utterly unattainable, after the lapse 
of ages of error and darkness. If it should be agreed, 
to receive as apostolical, every thing w T hich the early 
Fathers professed to have received by tradition from 
the apostles, yet it would be most unreasonable to be 
required to admit as divine, the monstrous mass of 
traditions held by the Romish church, which has 
been accumulating for ages. 

But it is capable of the clearest proof, that great 
uncertainty attended all matters received by tradi- 
tion, which were not contained in Scripture, even in 
those times that were nearest to the days of the apos- 
tles. This fact is manifest, in the case of Papias, 
who was contemporary with the last of the apostles ; 
and of Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the se- 
cond century. If then tradition was so uncertain, 
at its very source, who can place any confidence in 
this channel of communication, after it has been in- 
creasing in impurity, for seventeen hundred years ? 
If the stream had even been pure in its commence- 
ment, it would, by this time, have become so turbid, 



325 



and so poisoned, that no dependence could be placed 
in the information conveyed by it. But where cer- 
tain things are said to have been received by tradi- 
tion from the apostle John, at second hand, it was 
deemed important to verify them, by a comparison 
with the Scriptures, as w 7 e have already seen. How 
unreasonable then is the demand, that w r e should now 
receive all traditions, which have come down to us, 
without any test of their genuineness, or any com- 
parison of them with the Oracles of God ! 

Here also, it is necessary to observe, that there is 
a wide distinction to be made between articles of 
faith and institutions of worship, which are obligatory 
on all, and such modes of worship as were adopted 
under the general rule, of " doing all things decently 
and in order ;" or, from notions of expediency, with 
a view of conciliating those that were without. It 
may be proved, indeed, from the writings of the 
Fathers, that many things of this kind existed, which 
they never thought of placing on a level with the 
faith received from the apostles. And it may be 
here remarked, that it was one of the first and great- 
est mistakes, into which the church fell, after inspira- 
tion ceased, to make too free a use of this doctrine 
of expediency. The abuses which have crept in un- 
der this specious disguise were not foreseen. The 
Fathers saw no harm in an indifferent ceremony, to 
which, perhaps, their new converts were attached 
from long custom. By adopting things of this kind, 
the church, which was at first simple, and unincum- 
bered with rites, became strangely metamorphosed ; 
and in place of her simple robe of white, assumed a 
gorgeous dress, tricked off with guady ornaments and 

e e 



326 



various colours. And this practice, of inventing 
new ceremonies, went on increasing, until, in process 
of time, the burdensome ritual of the Levitical law, 
was not comparable to the liturgy of the Christian 
church. Who that now attends a Romish chapel, 
on some high day, would suppose that the service 
performed, was connected with the religion of the 
New Testament? 

It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce testi- 
monies from the Fathers, of the second, third, and 
fourth ages, of the Christian church, to show, that 
such ceremonies were then in use, in some particular 
part of the church ; or even in the church universal. 
All know by what means these things were received, 
and obtained prevalence. But let it be kept in 
memory, that the Fathers do not assert that these 
usages were derived from the apostles ; nor do they 
pretend, that they were necessary ; and, accordingly 
w r e find, that in different countries, they were not the 
same. 

4. I come now to consider, the last argument for 
unwritten traditions, w T hich I have been able to dis- 
cover. It is this, that without the aid of tradition, 
the Scriptures will be of no real benefit to us, be- 
cause it is only by this means that we can arrive at 
their true meaning. And, it is alleged, that the 
Fathers, in all disputes with heretics, when they re- 
ferred to Scripture, still appealed to universal tradi- 
tion, for a true exposition of the meaning of the pas- 
sages adduced. 

In returning an answer to this argument, I would 
observe, that should we even grant all that is con- 
tended for it would not be a concession of the main 



32? 



point in controversy. The claim of the Romanists, 
so unblushingly advanced, in the decree of Trent, 
already cited, is, ft That traditions relating both to 
faith and manners, are to be received with equal affec- 
tion and, reverence, as the Canonical Scriptures" 
And, lest we should be at any loss to know, what arti- 
cles of faith are pretended to be received by tradition 
alone, Peter a Soto, one of the great defenders of 
the decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member 
of that Council, explicitly declares, " That the rule 
is infallible and universal ; that whatever things the 
Romish church believes and holds, which are not 
contained in the Scriptures, are to be considered as 
derived from the apostles; provided, the observances 
cannot be traced to any certain origin, or author." 
Every thing in use, in this church, of the commence- 
ment of which we are ignorant, must be ascribed to 
the apostles without doubt, and without further proof 
And then he descends to particular doctrines and 
rites, w r hich, according to this sweeping rule, we 
must receive, as handed down by tradition, from the 
apostles. Among which are, " The oblation of the 
Sacrifice of the altar, Unction with Chrism or the 
holy oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good 
works, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the con- 
secration of the water in baptism, the sacrament of 
confirmation, of orders, of matrimony, prayers for 
the dead, extreme unction, auricular confession, and 
satisfaction, &c. But beside these, there are innu- 
merable other things which are held sacred by the 
Romish church, which cannot be proved from Scrip- 
ture, such as the mutilation of the Lord's Supper, the 
celibacy of the clergy, the distinction of meats, pur- 



328 



gatory, pilgrimages, indulgences, the worship of im- 
ages, and relics, the canonization of saints, &c. &c. 
Now, she cannot pretend that all these were received 
from the apostles, for some of them are in direct re- 
pugnance to the plain declarations of Scripture ; and 
the occasion of the introduction of some of them 
is matter of history, and acknowledged by the Ro- 
manists themselves. And surely, it is not a very 
convincing argument of the apostolical origin of 
doctrines or ceremonies, that we do not know when 
they took their rise. 

But, the argument now under consideration, relin- 
quishes this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures, 
as the foundation of faith, but insists, that the true 
interpretation of Scripture, can only be known by 
tradition. On which we remark; — 

That many things in Scripture are so clear, that 
they stand in need of no interpretation. They are 
already as plain as any exposition can make them. 
Who wants tradition to teach him, that Christ is the 
Son of God ; was born of the virgin Mary ; was 
crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose again the third 
day; and ascended to heaven, whence he will come 
again to judge the world ? If we cannot understand 
the plain declarations of Scripture, neither could we 
understand an exposition. If we cannot know what 
the apostles and evangelists mean, in their plainest 
declarations, when we have their very words before 
us, how shall we know what is the meaning of the 
vague language of tradition? 

There are many parts of the New Testament, of 
which tradition has handed down no interpretation. 
If we wish to know their meaning, it is in vain that 



329 



we apply to the Fathers, for instruction. They are 
silent. They have not commented on these books 
and passages. To which of the Fathers shall I go 
for an exposition of the book of Revelation ? Or will 
the Pope himself, aided by all his cardinals, or by an 
oecumenical council, undertake to give us the true in- 
terpretation of this prophecy ? It cannot be true, that, 
Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition ; un- 
less we agree to give up a large part of the New 
Testament as wholly incapable of being understood. 
We cannot build our faith on the interpretation of 
the Fathers, in all cases, because they often fall into 
palpable mistakes, which is not denied by the Roman- 
ists themselves; and again* they differ among them- 
selves. How then can it be known what that in- 
terpretation is, which was received from the apos- 
tles? Must I follow Justin, or Iren^us, or Cle- 
ment of Alexandria? or must I believe in all the 
allegorical interpretations contained in the Ho- 
milies of Origen, according to which, the plain- 
est passages are made to mean something perfectly 
foreign from the literal sense? If the tradition 
which brings down this interpretation, is not found 
in the writings of the Fathers, where is it ? And 
how has it come down? Surely that which was 
never mentioned nor recorded by the ancient church, 
ought not to be received as an apostolical tra- 
dition : for, as the great Chilingworth says, " A 
silent tradition, is like a silent thunder," a thing 
inconceivable. But we shall be told, that the 
church has preserved this deposit, and can tes- 
tify that it was derived from the apostles. What 
church ? And where is her testimonv ? And how 
e e 2 



330 



do we know, that among such a mass of traditions, 
some have not crept in, which originated in other 
sources than the teaching of Christ and his apostles? 
Who kept these traditions securely when the church 
was overrun with Gothic ignorance and barbarism? 
Who kept this treasure unadulterated, when Arianism 
was predominant? If there be such an oral law, 
containing an exposition of Scripture, how has it 
happened that there have existed such dissensions 
about doctrine, in the Romish church itself? And, 
as it is acknowledged, that many usages of the 
church have had their origin, long since the apostles' 
days, what authority is there for these innovations? 
If the authority of the church was sufficient to esta- 
blish these, it could as easily establish all the rest, 
and there is no need of apostolical tradition : but, if 
there is a distinction to be made between obser- 
vances derived from the apostles, and such as have 
been invented by men, how can we draw the line 
between them ? 

An implicit believer in the infallibility of the Pope, 
would deem it sufficient to answer, that his holiness, 
at Rome, knows certainly w T hat is apostolical, and 
what not; what is obligatory and what not. All 
we have to do, is to believe what he believes, or 
what he tells us to believe. Now, without dis- 
puting the pretensions of the bishop of Rome, to 
such extraordinary knowledge, at present, I would 
ask, if we must go to an infallible judge to learn what 
are apostolical traditions, what use is there in tradi- 
tions ? Why does not this infallible teacher declare, 
at once, what is truth, in all cases, without the trou- 



331 



ble of searching into antiquity, after traditions, which 
never can be found ? 

But if it be alleged that the traditions which ought 
to be received as the rule of our faith, are such 
as were universal, and concerning which, there can- 
not be any doubt, I answer, that many such tradi- 
tions may indeed be found, but what do they respect? 
Those very doctrines which are most plainly and 
frequently inculcated, in Scripture: and of which we 
need no exposition; for, as was said before, they are 
expressed as perspicuously, as any exposition can be. 
But it affords us satisfaction to find the church open- 
ly professing, from the beginning, those truths, which 
w T e find recorded in Scripture. If it does not add 
confirmation to our faith, in these points, it gives us 
pleasure to find such a harmony in the belief of true 
Christians. 

Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon traditions. 

Heretics in all ages, sheltered themselves under 
this doctrine. Those, with whom Tertullian contend- 
ed, alleged, that the apostles did not know every 
thing necessary, as Christ declared he had many 
things to say, which they could not bear yet ; or, 
there were some things which they did not teach 
publicly, nor commit to writing, but communicated 
privately to a few chosen persons, and, therefore, they 
declined the authority of Scripture. The same is 
true of those against whom Irenasus wrote. They 
appealed from Scripture to tradition, and he answers 
them by showing, that universal tradition was con- 
formable to Scripture. 

Eusebius informs us, that Artemon, who asserted 



332 



that Christ was a mere man, pretended that he had 
learnt, from tradition, that all the apostles were of 
his opinion.* 

Thus also, Clement of Alexandria, says, "That 
Basilides gloried, in having received his doctrine, 
through a few hands, from Peter; and Valentinus 
boasted, in having been instructed by one who had 
been a disciple of Paul."f The Marcionites profess- 
ed to have received their doctrines from St. Matthew. 
The Arians, as appears by an oration against them 
by Athanasius, appealed to tradition, for the con- 
firmation of their tenets. 

In fact, this doctrine of unwritten traditions, has 
been justly compared to Pandora's box, which is cal- 
culated to fill the world with evils and heresies. 

But not only have heretics availed themselves of 
this corrupt fountain, but good men have been de- 
ceived by lending too credulous an ear to traditions. 

Papias, one of the hearers of John the apostle, was, 
a great collector of traditions. He was inquisitive to 
know, what each of the apostles had, at any time 
said ; and there was some chance at coming at the 
truth from oral tradition, by one who was a hearer 
of one of the apostles. But what valuable informa- 
tion did this good man obtain by all his inquiries, 
which is not in Scripture ? Let Eusebius answer, 
"Papias adopted many paradoxical opinions, by 
giving heed to unwritten traditions, 0<*§*cfe<w ^^x,) 
and received certain strange parables of our Saviour, 
mixed with fabulous things, among which was the 
error of the Chiliasts ; by which many other excel- 

* Liber v. c. 28. f Strom, xiii. 



333 



lent men were deceived, paying too much deference 
to antiquity, and unwritten traditions. Even such 
men as Irenseus, Apollinarins, Tertullian, Victorinus, 
and Lactantius, were misled by these ancient tradi- 
tions, so that they adopted an opinion, for which there 
is no foundation in Sacred Scripture, and not only 
so, but which is repugnant to the doctrine of Christ 
and his apostles." 

Clement of Alexandria, too, than whom no man of 
the ancient church was more celebrated, speaks of 
certain persons who had taken much pains to pre- 
serve the sayings of the apostles, handed down by 
tradition, among whom he mentions a Hebrew, who 
is supposed to be Papias ; but when he comes to tell 
us what he had learned from these unwritten tradi- 
tions, which is not contained in Scripture, it amounts 
to this, " That there was a public doctrine and a se- 
cret doctrine ; the one esoteric, and the other exoteric; 
that the former was committed to writing, and was 
in the hands of all ; but the latter was communicated 
secretly to chosen disciples. And if we may judge 
of the secret doctrine handed down by tradition, 
from some specimens of it which he had learned, we 
will not appreciate unwritten traditions very highly, 
in comparison with the written word. Among these 
is the opinion, that the Greek Philosophy answered 
the same purpose as the Law of Moses, and w T as a 
schoolmaster to bring those that professed it unto 
Christ; that this philosophy, as well as the Law of 
Moses, was able to justify men; and that there were 
many ways of obtaining life. From the same tradition, 
he teaches, that Christ's ministry was finished in one 
year, which opinion Irenaeus ascribes to heretics, 
and declares it as a tradition from John, that Christ, 



334 

when he was crucified, was nearly fifty years of 
age. Clement relates it as a tradition, " That the 
apostles after their death, went and preached to the 
dead, who descended with the apostles into a place 
of water, and then came up alive," and many other 
like things.* 

There is much reason to believe, that the corrup- 
tion of the church, which commenced about this 
time, was owing to a disposition which began to be 
indulged, of lending too credulous an ear to tradi- 
tions, and to apocryphal writings. 

But among the Fathers, no one gave himself up 
so entirely to unwritten traditions, and apocryphal 
fables, as Epiphanius. His writings abound with 
things of this kind ; but who would assert that we 
are bound to receive these stories, as articles of 
faith? Even the Romish Church, with all her store 
of legends, will not receive as true and necessary, 
all that is handed down by tradition from one and 
another of the Fathers. 

From what has been said, therefore, the conclu- 
sion is clear, that the Scriptures are complete with- 
out unwritten traditions : that no articles of faith, nor 
institutions of worship, concerning w 7 hich the Scrip- 
tures are silent, have come down to us by tradition ; 
that we have uniform, universal tradition, on those 
points, which are plainly taught in Scripture; that 
many things pretended to have been received from 
the Apostles by tradition, cannot be traced to them; 
and that many other things, made equally necessary 
by the Romish church, can be proved to have origi- 
nated many hundreds of years since the death 

* Strom. Lib. II. 



335 



of the Apostles. It has also been shown, that 
there is no certain method of distinguishing between 
what is apostolical, and what has been derived from 
other sources, unless we make the Scriptures our 
standard ; that tradition cannot be our guide, even 
in interpreting Scripture ; and, finally, that tradition 
has been the common refuge of heretics, and has 
greatly misled good and orthodox men, by inducing 
them to adopt wild theories, fabulous stories, and 
paradoxical opinions, some of which are directly re- 
pugnant to scripture. 

The traditions of the Romish church stand on no 
higher ground, than the traditions of the Scribes and 
Pharisees, in the time of our Saviour ; but he reject- 
ed these traditions, as having no authority, and as 
making void the law of God. " Why do ye" says 
Christ, " also transgress the commandment of God by 
your tradition? — Thus have ye made the command- 
ment of God of none effect by your tradition. — Howbe- 
it, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men" The same questions and 
reproofs may with equal propriety be addressed to 
the Pope, and the doctors of the Romish church. 
But, say we, " To the Law and to the testimony ; if 
they speak not according to these, it is because there 
is no light in them" 

Thus have we brought this work to a close ; and 
it affords us pleasure to believe, that most who read 
these pages, will be convinced, that the Bible is a 

COMPLETE RULE, BOTH OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. " The 

Law of the Lord is perfect" What a treasure have 

w r e in the Old and New Testaments ! Here, God 

Matt. xv. 3, 6. Mark. vii. 7. Isaiah, viii. 20. Ps. xix. 



336 



speaks to us by his lively oracles. The truth is 
taught so plainly, in this Sacred volume, that he who 
runs may read. The way of life is delineated so dis- 
tinctly, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall 
not err therein. We have, indeed, " a sure word of 
prophecy, to which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a 
light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and 
the day star arise in your hearts" 

There is nothing lacking to him that is in posses- 
sion of the Scriptures; for, "All Scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof , for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished unto all good works" 

Let us then be grateful to God, and give him un- 
ceasing thanks for this precious deposit, which he 
has committed to his church; and which, by his 
Providence, he hath preserved uninjured, through all 
the vicissitudes, through which she has passed. 

Let us praise God, that in regard to us, that night 
of darkness is past, in which there was a famine, not 
of bread, nor of water, but of the word of the Lord ; 
when the light of this brilliant lamp was put out, or 
rather 'put under a bushel,' and the feeble erring 
light of tradition, was substituted in its place. 

Let us be glad and rejoice that w r e have lived to 
see the day, when copies of the Bible are multiplied, 
and when many run to and fro, to circulate them ; 
and let us wait in assured hope for the day, when 
the knowledge of the lord shall cover the 

earth, as the waters cover the sea. even" so, 

come Lord Jesus. Amen. 

2 Pet. 7, 19. 2 Tim. iii. 10, 17. 



^OTES. 



NOTE A. 

PRIMUM DECRETUM QUARTS SESSIOXIS, QUINTO APRILIS 
CELEBRATE, COXCILII TRIJDENTINI, A. D. 1546. 

Sacrosancta cecumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in 
Spiritu sancto legitimo congregata, presidentibus in ea tribus 
Apostolicae sedis legatis, hoc sibi ante omnia perpetuo propo- 
nens, vt sublatis omnibus erroribus, puritas ipsa Euangelii in 
Ecclesia conservetur, quod promissum ante per Prophetas in 
Scripturis Sanctis, Dominus noster Iesus Christus Dei nlius pro- 
prio ore primum promulgavit, deinde per suos Apostolos, tan- 
quam fontem omnis salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinee omni 
creatures preedicari iussit, perspiciensque hanc veritatem et 
disciplinam contineri in libris scriptus, et sine scripto traditio- 
nibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ip- 
sis Apostolis Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditee 
ad nos vsque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum Patrum exempla se- 
cuta, omnes libros, tarn veteris, quam noui Testamenti (cum 
vtriusque vnus Deus sit autor) nee non traditiones illas, turn, ad 
n'dem turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenos a Christo, 
vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia 
catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu, ac reuerentia suscipit 
ac veneratur. Sacrorum vero librorum indicem, huic decreto 
asscribendum censuit : ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam 
sint, qui ab ipsa Synodo suscipiantur, Sunt vero infra scripti 
Testamenti veteris. Quinque libri Moysi, scilicet Genesis, 
Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Deinde, Iosue, Iu- 
dicum, Ruth, Quatuor Regum, Paralipomenon duo, Esdra? duo, 
primus scilicet et secundus, qui dicitur Nehemias, Tobias, Iu- 
dith, Esther, lob, Psalterium Davidicum, centum quinquaginta 
Psalmorium, Parabolse Salomonis, Ecclesia stes, Canticum Can- 
ticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias, Baruch, 
Ezechiel, Daniel, duodecim Prophetas minores, scilic et. Osee. 

F.f 



338 



loel, Amos. Abdias, Ionas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sopho- 
nias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Duo Machabseorum, pri- 
mus scilicet et secundus. Testamenti [noui, Quatuor Euange- 
lia, secundum Matthseum, Marcum, Lucam et Ioannem. Acta 
Apostolorum a Luca Evangelista conscripta quatuordecim Epis- 
tolae beati Pauli Apostoli, scilicet ad Romanos ad Corinthios duse, 
ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Collossenses, ad 
Thessalonisenses duse, ad Timotheeum duse, ad Titum, ad Phile- 
monem, ad Hebraeos, Petri Apostoli duse, Ioannis Apostoli tres, 
Iacobi vna, vna Iudee Apostoli, Apocalypsis Ioannis Apostoli. 

Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibus 
prout in Ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata 
Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non suscepe- 
rit, et traditiones prsedictas sciens et prudens contemserit ana- 
thema sit. 

Omnes itaque intelligant, quo ordine et via ipsa Synodus post 
iactum fidei confessionis fundamentum sit progressura, et quibus 
potissimum testimoniis ac preesidiis, in confirmandis dogmatibus 
et instaurandis in Ecclesia moribus sit usura. 

Which may be thus translated . " The holy oecumenical and 
general Council of Trent, legitimately convened in the Holy Spi- 
rit, under the presidency of three legates of the Apostolic see, 
constantly proposing this before all things, that all errors being 
taken away, the Gospel in its purity may be preserved in the 
Church, which was promised before by the Prophets in the Holy 
Scriptures, but which was promulgated by our Lord Jesus Christ 
the Son of God, with his own mouth: moreover, he commanded 
it to be preached to every creature by his apostles, as the foun- 
tain of all saving truth and moral discipline ; which truth and 
discipline he provided should be contained in the books of Scrip- 
ture, and in unwritten traditions, received from the mouth of 
Christ by the Apostles, or from the Apostles speaking by the in- 
spiration of the Holy Spirit, and handed down to us ; therefore 
this Synod following the example of the orthodox Fathers, re- 
ceives and venerates with equal pious affection and reverence, 
all the books both of the Old and New Testament (for one God 
is the author of both :) Likewise those traditions relating to 
faith and manners, which were received from the mouth of Christ 
himself, or from his inspired Apostles, and which have been pre- 



339 



served in an uninterrupted succession, in the Catholic Church. 
Moreover, this Synod, judges it proper to give a catalogue of 
the Sacred Books, lest any doubt should arise in the minds of 
any respecting the books received by them, the names of which 
are here inserted in this decree : viz. The Five Books of Moses ; 
Gen. Exodus, Lev. Numb. Deut. — Next, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 
Four Books of Kings, Two of Chronicles, Two of Ezra, viz. 
The First, and the Second which is called "Xeherniah, Tobit, Ju- 
dith, Esther, Job, CL. Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, 
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Je- 
remiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Twelve Minor Prophets, viz. 
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habak- 
kuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi, Two of Macca- 
bees, First and Second. Of the New Testament, The Four 
Gospels, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John ; The Acts of the 
Apostles, written by Luke the Evangelist ; Fourteen Epistles of 
the blessed Apostle Paul, viz. To the Romans, to the Corinthi- 
ans, Two ; To the Galatians ; To the Ephesians ; To the Phi- 
lippians ; To' the Colossians ; To the Thessalonians, Two ; To 
Timothy. Two; To Titus; To Philemon; To the Hebrews. 
Of the Apostle Peter, Two. Of the Apostle John, Three. Of 
James, One. Of the Apostle Jucle, One. The Apocalypse, of 
John, the Apostle. 

;; But if any one shall not receive as Canonical and Sacred, all 
these books, with all their parts, as they are used to be read in 
the Catholic Church : or shall knowingly and intentionally con- 
temn any of the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema. 

;i Hence all may understand, in what order and way, the Sy- 
nod, after laying the foundation of the Confession of their Faith, 
will proceed ; and what testimonies and proofs they will especially 
use in confirming doctrines, and in the reformation of manners, 
in the church." 



340 

NOTE B. 

PASSAGE FROM TERTULLIAN. 
The original of this passage is as follows, " Age jam, qui, vo- 
les curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuse percurre 
Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsse adhuc cathedrae president : 
apud quas ipsee authentic.^: liters eorum recitantur, sonantes 
vocem, et representantes faciem uniuscujuscunque. Proxima 
est tibi Achaia 1 habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedo- 
nia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam 
tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italise adjaces, habes Romans 
unde nobis quoque auctoritatas praesto est." 

De Prcescrip. cap. 36. 



NOTE C. 

GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES. 

There is no apocryphal book of the New Testament, which 
has been so much spoken of both by the ancients and moderns, 
as The Gospel of the Nazarenes. By some, not only of the 
Romanists, but also of the Protestants, it has been exalted very 
nearly to an equality with the Canonical books of the New Tes- 
tament. It seems necessary, therefore, to examine its claims 
with more attention than is requisite in the case of other books 
of this class. 

This gospel was known among the ancients under several dif- 
ferent titles. It was sometimes called, the gospel according 

TO THE TWELVE APOSTLES ; THE GOSPEL OF BARTHOLOMEW ; THE 
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS ; THE GOSPEL OF THE EbI- 
ONITES, &C. 

It is the opinion of some, that this is the gospel to which Paul 
alludes, Gal. i. 6, where he speaks of another gospel. However 
this may be, if we credit Eusebius, we must believe, that it ex- 
isted as early as the beginning of the second century ; for he re- 
presents Hegesippus as writing some things concerning the gos- 
pel according to the Hebrews and Syrians* 

* Ecc. Hist. Lib. iv. p. 58. 



341 



Clement of Alexandria, cites from it the following passage : 
He who admires shall reign, and he who reigns shall be at ease, 

Origen speaks of it in this manner, " If any one will receive 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, in which our Saviour 
says, " The Holy Ghost my mother lately took me by one of my 
hairs, and led me to the great mountain of TJiabor." And in 
another place, " It is written in a certain gospel which is entitled 
according to the Hebrews, (if any one be pleased to receive it 
not as of authority, but only for illustration of the present ques- 
tion,) "A certain rich man said to Christ, what good thing 
shall I do that I may inherit life? He said to him, Oman 
keep the Law and the Prophets : he answered him, that I have 
done ; he said to him, go sell all things that thou hast, and dis- 
tribute among the poor, and come and follow me. The rich 
man hereupon began to scratch his head, and icas displeased. 
And the Lord said unto him, how can you say that you have 
kept the Law and the Prophets? seeing it is written in the 
Law, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; but behold, many 
of thy brethren, children of Abraham, are clothed icith nas- 
tiness, and ready to perish for hunger, while thy home abounds 
with all sorts of delicacies, and nothing is sent out of it to 
them. And turning about, he said to his disciple, Simon, who 
sat by him, Simon son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to 
pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter 
into the kingdom of heaven ."* 

Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal and spurious books, says, 
" In this number, some have placed the gospel according to 
the Hebrews, with which, they of the Jews who profess Chris- 
tianity are very much delighted." And speaking of the Ebion- 
ites, he says, " They made use only of that which is called the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, very little esteeming any oth- 
ers."! 

Epiphanius has left several testimonies respecting this gospel ; 
among which are the following: "The Nazarenes have the 
Gospel of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language ; for 
this is still preserved among them, as it was at first, in Hebrew 



Strom. Lib. ii. p. 380. Horn, in Jerem. 

| Ecc. Hist, Lib. ni. c. 25, 27. 
Ff2 



342 



characters. But I know not whether they have taken away the 
.genealogy from Abraham to Christ." 

In another place, speaking of the Ebionites, he says, " They 
also receive the Gospel according to Matthew. For this both 
they and the Corinthians make use of, and no other. They call 
it the Gospel according to the Hebrews; for the truth is, that 
Matthew is the only one of the New Testament writers, who 
published his gospel and preaching, in the Hebrew language, 
and Hebrew characters." 

And again, "In that Gospel which they (the Ebionites) have 
called, according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and per- 
fect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the He- 
brew Gospel, it is written, " That there was a certain man call- 
ed Jesus, — and he being about thirty years of age, made 
choice of us. And coming to Capernaum, he entered into the 
house of Simon called Peter, and opening his mouih said, 
When I passed by the lake of Tiberias, 1 chose John and 
James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew, and Thad- 
deus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Iscariot, and thou Mat- 
thew, sitting at the receipt of custom, I called, and thou didst 
follow me. I will therefore that ye be my twelve apostles, for 
a testimony to Israel." .... The meat of John the Baptist, ac- 
cording to his gospel, was, wild honey, the taste of which was 
like manna, or as cakes made with honey and oil. Thus they 
change the true account into a falsehood, and for locusts, put 
cakes made with oil and honey." "The beginning of the Gos- 
pel was this, It came to pass in the days of Herod," &c. After 
relating the baptism of Christ, as it is recorded in the other 
Gospel, except that it asserts, that the voice from heaven, 
saying, This is my beloved Son, &c., was repeated, it goes 
on to say, That hereupon John fell down before him, and said, 
O Lord, I pray thee baptize me, but he hindered him, saying 
that it is fit that all these things should be fulfilled. " See," 
says Epiphanius, " how their false doctrine appears every where, 
how all things are imperfect, disordered, and without any truth !" 
So also Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using this same Gospel of 
theirs, would prove that Christ proceeded from the seed of Jo- 
seph and Mary."* 

* Epiph. Hseres. 



343 



But the testimony of Jerome respecting* this gospel, is the 
most full. " Matthew also called Levi," says he, " who became 
from a publican an apostle, was the first who composed a Gos- 
pel of Christ, and for the sake of those who believed in Christ 
among the Jews, wrote it in the Hebrew language and letters, 
but it is uncertain who translated it into Greek. Moreover, the 
Hebrew (copy) is to this time preserved in the library of Ceesa- 
rea, which Pamphilus, the martyr, with much diligence, collect- 
ed. The Xazarenes, who live in Bercea, a city of Syria, and 
made use of this volume, granted me the favour of writing it out. 
In which (Gospel) there is this observable, that wherever the 
evangelist either cites himself, or introduces our Saviour as 
citing, any passage out of the Old Testament, he does not follow 
the translation of the LXX, but the Hebrew copies, of which 
there are these two instances, viz. " Out of Egypt have I call- 
ed my Son ; and, He shall be called a Xazarene. This testi- 
mony is found in Jerome's life of Matthew. And in his life of 
James, we find the following account. " The gospel also, which 
is called, According to the Hebrews, and which 1 lately trans- 
lated into Greek and Latin, and which Origen often used re- 
lates, " That after our Saviour's resurrection, when our Lord 
had given the linen cloth to the priesfs servant, he icent to 
James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn, that he 
would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup 
of the Lord, till he should see the Lord risen from the dead. 
And a little after, the Lord, said, Bring the table and the bread ; 
and then it is added, He took the bread, and blessed it, and. 
brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, my 
brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the 
dead" 

And in a work against Pelagius, he says, "In the gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldo-Syriac 
language, which the Xazarenes use, and is that according to 
the Twelve Apostles, or as most think, according to Matthew, 
which is in the library of Ceesarea, there is the following histo- 
ry : Behold the mother and brethren of Christ spake to him : 
John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go 
and be baptized of him. He said, in what have I sinned, that 
I have need to go and be baptized of him 1 Unless my saying 



344 

this proceed, perhaps, from ignorance." And in the same gospel 
it is said " If thy brother offend thee by any word, and make thee 
satisfaction, if it be seven times in a day, thou must forgive 
him. Simon his disciple said unto him, What ! seven times 
in a day ? The Lord answered and said unto him, I tell thee 
also till seventy times seven." 

The same author, in his commentary on Isaiah, mentions this 
Gospel in the following manner; According to their Gospel, 
which is written in the Hebrew language, and read by the 
Nazarenes, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended 
upon him. Besides, in that gospel just mentioned, we find 
these things written. "It came to pass ichen the Lord ascended 
from the icaters, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost de- 
scended and lasted upon him, and said to him, My son, among, 
(or during the time of) all the prophets, I was loaitingfor thy 
coming, that I might rest upon thee: thou art my first begot- 
ten Son, who shall reign to everlasting ages." 

And in his commentary on Ezekiel, " In that which is enti- 
tled, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is reckoned among 
the chief of crimes, for a person to make sorrowful the heart of 
his brother." 

In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, he has the fol- 
lowing : " In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, 
which I lately translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which 
is by most esteemed the authentic Gospel of Matthew, the man 
who had the withered hand, is said to be a mason, and prayed 
for relief in the following words : " i" was a mason, who got my 
livelihood by my hands ; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou would- 
est restore me to my strength, that I may no longer thus scan- 
dalously beg my bread." 

"In the gospel which the Nazarenes use, for the son of Bara- 
chiah, I find written, the son of Jehoiada." "In this gospel we 
read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel 
or beam of a prodigious size fell down." " In the Hebrew gos- 
pel we read, that our Lord said to his disciples, Be ye never '" 
cheerful, unless when you can see your brother in love." 

Concerning this gospel according to the Hebrews, very dif- 
ferent opinions have been expressed by learned men. Some 
have even pretended, that if it was now in existence, it would 



345 



be greatly superior to the Greek copy, but generally it has been 
considered apocryphal, for very good reasons, some of which 1 
will now set down. 

1. It was never received by any of the Fathers as Canonical, 
or cited as of any authority, by any writer, during the first four 
centuries. 

For full proof of the fact here stated, I would refer the reader 
to Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. 

2. This gospel was apocryphal, because it contained several 
things contrary to known and undoubted truths. Of this sort, 
are the passages which have been cited respecting Christ's man- 
ner of speaking, in regard to the baptism of John. Also, the ac- 
count which it contains of the oath of the apostle James ; for it 
is evident that the disciples knew nothing of Christ's resurrec- 
tion from the dead, until after that event occurred. 

3. A third argument of the apocryphal character of this gos- 
pel, is derived from the ludicrous and silly relations which it 
contains. As that of the rich man's scratching his head; and the 
Holy Ghost taking up Christ by one of his hairs, and carrying 
him to the great mountain Tabor, &c. 

The most probable opinion of the origin of this gospel is, that 
it was a corruption of the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, by 
the Ebionites. These heretics having this gospel in their posses- 
sion, and having departed from the true faith, mutilated the gospel 
of Matthew, by striking out such things as were unfavourable to 
their heresy, and adding such fabulous stories as suited their 
purpose. Of the fragments which remain, there is not one which 
agrees exactly with the authentic gospel of Matthew. Epipha- 
nius expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel of 
Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but corrupted 
and adulterated ; and that they had taken away the genealogy 
from the beginning, and commenced their gospel w 7 ith these 
words, " And it came to pass in the days of Herod" &c, 



346 



NOTE D. 

AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS MENTIONED 
BY ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE FATHERS, WHICH ARE NOT 
NOW EXTANT ; EXTRACTED FROM " JONES ON THE CA- 
NON." 



The Acts of Andrew. 
The Gospel of Andrew. 
The Gospel of Apelles. 
The Gospel according to the 

Twelve Apostles. 
The Gospel of Barnabas. 
The Gospel of Bartholomew. 
The Gospel of Basilides. 
The Gospel of Cerinthus. 
The Revelation of Cerinthus. 
An Epistle of Christ to Peter 

and Paul. 
Another Epistle of Christ, pro- 
duced by the Manichees. 
A Hymn which Christ taught 

his Disciples. 
The Gospel according to the 

Egyptians. 
The Acts of the Apostles, used 

by the Ebionites. 
The Gospel of the Ebionites. 
The Gospel of the Encratites. 
The Gospel of Eve. 
The Gospel according to the 

Hebrews. 
The Book of the Helkesaites. 
The False Gospels of Hesy- 

chius. 
The Book of James. 
The Acts of John. 
The Gospel of Jude. 
The Gospel of Judas Iscariot. 
The Acts of the Apostles, by 

Leucius. 
The Acts of the Apostles, by 

Lentitius. 



The Acts of the Apostles, by 

Leontius. 
The Acts of the Apostles, by 

Leuthon. 
The False Gospels by Luci- 

anus. 
The Gospel of Matthias. 
Traditions of Matthias. 
The Acts of the Apostles, used 

by the Manichees. 
The Gospel of Marcion. 
The Gospel of Merinthus. 
The Gospel according to the 

Nazarenes. 
The Gospel of Perfection. 
The Acts of Paul. 
Preaching of Paul and Peter. 
The Revelation of Paul. 
The Acts of Peter. 
The Doctrine of Peter. 
The Gospel of Peter. 
The Judgment of Peter. 
The Preaching of Peter. 
The Revelation of Peter. 
The Acts of Philip. 
The Gospel of Philip. 
The Gospel of Scythianus. 
The Acts of the Apostles, by 

Seleucus. 
The Revelation of Stephen. 
The Gospel of Tatian. 
The Gospel of Thaddeus. 
The Gospel of Truth. 
The Acts of Thomas. 
The Gospel of Thomas. 
The Revelation of Thomas. 
The Gospel of Valentinus. 



347 



For an account of the writers who have mentioned these spu- 
rious works, the reader is referred to Jones on the Canon, vol. 
I. part i. c. xx. But it should be remembered, that all these 
books are spoken of as apocryphal, by the writers who make 
mention of them. 



NOTE E. 

THE DECREE OF POPE GELASIUS, CONCERNING APOCRYPHAL 
BOOKS. 

1. The Travels under the name of Peter, which is also called 
the Eight Books of St. Clemens, is apocryphal. 

2. The Acts under the name of Andrew the Apostle, are 
apocryphal. 

3- The Acts under the name of Philip the Apostle, are apo- 
cryphal. 

4. The Acts under the name of Peter, are apocryphal. 

5. The Acts under the name of Thomas the Apostle, are apo- 
cryphal. 

6. The Gospel under the name of Thaddeus, is apocryphal. 

7. The Gospel under the name of Thomas the Apostle, is apo- 
cryphal. 

8. The Gospel under the name of Barnabas, is apocryphal. 

9. The Gospel under the name of Bartholomew, is apocryphal. 

10. The Gospel under the name of Andrew the Apostle, is 
apocryphal. 

11. The Gospels corrupted by Lucianus, are apocryphal. 

12. The Gospels corrupted by Hesychius, are apocryphal. 

13. The Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour, is apocryphal. 

14. The Book of the Nativity of our Saviour, is apocryphal. 

15. The Book called the Shepherd, is apocryphal. 

16. All the Books made by Lentitius the Disciple of the De- 
vil, are apocryphal. 

17. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, are apocryphal. 

18. The Revelation of Thomas, is apocryphal. 

19. The Revelation of Paul, is apocryphal. 

20. The Revelation of Stephen, is apocryphal. 



348 



21. The Travels, or Acts of Mary, are apocryphal. 

22. The Book called the Lots of the Apostles, is apocryphal. 

23. The Book called the Praise of the Apostles, is apocryphal. 

24. The Book of the Canon of the Apostles, is apocryphaL 

25. The Letter of Jesus to king Abgarus, is apocryphal. 



NOTE F. 

CORRESPONDENCE OF CHRIST AND ABGARUS. 

A copy of a letter written by king Abgarus to Jesus, and sent 
to him by Ananias, his footman, to Jerusalem. 
" Abgarus, king of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who 
appears at Jerusalem, greeting: — I have been informed con- 
cerning you and your cures, which are performed without the 
use of medicines and herbs. For it is reported, that you cause 
the blind to see, the lame to walk, do both cleanse lepers, and 
cast out unclean spirits and devils, and restore them to health 
who have been long diseased, and raisest up the dead : all which 
when 1 heard, I was persuaded of one of these two, viz. either 
that you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these 
things, or a Son of God. On this account, therefore, I have writ- 
ten to you, earnestly to desire you would take the trouble of a 
journey hither, and cure a disease which I am under. For 1 
hear the Jews ridicule you, and intend you mischief. My city 
is indeed small, but neat, and large enough for us both." 

The answer of Jesus, by Ananias the footman, to Abgarus the 
king. 
" Abgarus, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed on 
me, whom you have not seen. For it is written concerning me, 
that those who have seen me should not believe on me, that they 
who have not seen might beUeve and live. As to that part of 
your letter, which relates to my giving you a visit, I must in- 
form you, that I must fulfil all the ends of my mission in this 
country, and after that be received up again to him who sent 
me. But, after my ascension, I will send one of my disciples, 
who will cure your disease, and give life to you, and all that are 
with you." 



349 

NOTE G. 

Paul's epistle to the laodiceans. 
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans. 

1. Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Je- 
sus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea. 

2. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue 
and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised 
in the day of judgment. . ' 

4. Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who pervert 
the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the 
gospel which I have preached. 

5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a 
perfect knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be beneficent, and 
doing good works, which accompany salvation. 

6. And now, my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest 
in which I rejoice and am glad. 

7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation, for ever, 
which shall be through your prayer, and the supply of the Holy 
Spirit. 

8. Whether I live or die ; (for) to me to live shall be a life to 
Christ, to die will be joy. 

9. And our Lord wull grant us his mercy, that ye may have 
the same love, and be likeminded. 

10. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the coming 
of the Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life 
eternal ; 

11. For it is God who worketh in you ; 

12. And do all things without sin. 

13. And what is best, my beloveds rejoice in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre. 

14. Let all your requests be maf 1 -; known to God, and be steady 
in the doctrine of Christ. 

15. And whatsoever things are sound, and true, and of good 
report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do. 

16. Those things which ye have heard, and received, think 
on these things, and peace shall be with you. 



350 



17. And all the saints salute you. 

18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. 
Amen. 

19. Cause this epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the 
epistle of the Colossians to be read among you. 



NOTE H. 

st. paul's epistles to seneca, with seneca's to paul. 

Annceus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 

Epistle I. 

I suppose, Paul, that you have been informed of that conver- 
sation, which passed yesterday between me and my Lucilius, 
concerning hypocrisy and other subjects ; for there were some 
of your disciples in company with us; for when we were retired 
into the Sallustian gardens, through which they were also pass- 
ing, and would have gone another way, by our persuasion, they 
joined company with us. I desire you to believe, that we much 
wish for your conversation : we were much delighted with your 
book of many epistles, which you have wrote to some cities and 
chief towns of provinces, and which contains wonderful instruc- 
tions for moral conduct; such sentiments, as I suppose you were 
not the author of, but only the instrument of conveying, though 
sometimes both the author and the instrument ; for such is the 
sublimeness of those doctrines, and their grandeur, that I sup- 
pose the age of a man is scarce sufficient to be instructed and 
perfected in the knowledge of them. I wish your welfare, my 
brother. Farewell. 



Paul to Seneca, Greeting. 
Epistle I. 
I received your letter, yesterday, with pleasure; to which I 
could immediately have written an answer, had the young man 
been at home, whom I intended to have sent to you : for you 
know when, and by whom, at what seasons, and to whom, I 
must deliver every thing which I send. I desire, therefore, you 



351 



would not charge me with negligence, if I wait for a proper per- 
son. I reckon myself very happy, in having the judgment of so 
valuable a person, that you are delighted With my epistles : for, 
you would not be esteemed a censor, a philosopher, or be the tu- 
tor of so great a prince, and a master of every thing, if you were 
not sincere. I wish you lasting prosperity. 



Annceus Seneca to Paul, Greeting, 
Epistle II. 

I have completed some volumes, and divided them into their 
proper parts. I am determined to read them to Caesar, and if any 
favourable opportunity happens, you also shall be present, when 
they are read ; but if that cannot be, I will appoint and give you 
notice of a day, when we will together read over the perform- 
ance. I had determined, if I could with safety, first to have your 
opinion of it, before I published it to Caesar, that you might be 
convinced of my affection to you. Farewell dearest Paul. 



Paul to Seneca, Greeting. 
Epistle II. 

As often as I read your letters, I imagine you present with 
me : nor, indeed, do I think any other than that you are always 
with us. As soon, therefore, as you begin to come, we shall pre- 
sently see each other. I wish you all prosperity. 



Annceus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
Epistle III. 

We are very much concerned at your too long absence from 
us. What is it, or what affairs are they, which obstruct your 
coming? If you fear the anger of Caesar, because you have aban- 
doned your former religion, and made proselytes also of others, 
you have this to plead, that your acting thus proceeded not from 
inconstancy, but judgment. Farewell 



352 



Paul to Seneca and Lucilius, Greeting. 
Epistle III. 
Concerning those things, about which ye wrote to me, it is 
not proper for me to mention any thing in writing with pen and 
ink: the one of which leaves marks, and the other evidently 
declares things. Especially, since I know, that there are near 
you, as well as me, those who will understand my meaning. 
Deference is to be paid to all men, and so much the more, as 
they are more likely to take occasions of quarrelling. And if we 
show a submissive temper, we shall overcome effectually in all 
points, if so be they are such, who are capable of seeing and ac- 
knowledging themselves to have been in the wrong. Farewell. 



Annceus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
Epistle IV. 

I profess myself extremely pleased with the reading your let- 
ters to the Gaiatians, Corinthians, and people of Achaia. For 
the Holy Ghost has in them, by you, delivered those sentiments 
which are very lofty, sublime, deserving of all respect, and be- 
yond your own invention. I could wish, therefore, that when 
you are writing things so extraordinary there might not be want- 
ing an elegancy of speech agreeable to their majesty. And I 
must own, my brother, that 1 may not at once dishonestly con- 
ceal any thing from you, and be unfaithful to my own conscience, 
that the emperor is extremely pleased with the sentiments of 
your episties ; for when he heard thS beginning of them read, 
he declared, " that he was surprised to find such notions in a per- 
son who had not had a regular education." To which I replied, 
" that the gods sometimes made use of mean (innocent) persons 
to speak by, and gave him an instance of this in a mean coun- 
tryman, named Vatienus, who, when he was in the country of 
Reate, had two men to appear to him, called Castor and Pollux, 
and received a revelation from the gods. Farewell. 



353 



Paul to Seneca, Greeting, 
Epistle IV. 
Although I know the emperor is both an admirer and favourer 
of our (religion,) yet give me leave to advise you against your 
suffering any injury [by showing favour to us]. I think, indeed, 
you ventured upon a very dangerous attempt, when you would 
declare [to the emperor] that which is so very contrary to his 
religion and way of worship ; seeing he is a worshipper of the 
Heathen gods. I know not what you particularly had in view, 
when you told him of this; but 1 suppose you did it out of a too 
great respect for me. But I desire that for the future you would 
not do so ; for you had need be careful, lest by showing your af- 
fection to me, you should offend your master : his anger, indeed, 
will do us no harm, if he continue a heathen ; nor will his not 
being angry be of any service to us : and if the empress act 
worthy of her character, she will not be angry ; but if she act ag 
a woman, she will be affronted. Farewell. 



Anncsus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
Epistle V. 
I know that my letter, wherein I acquainted you, that I had 
read to the emperor your epistles, does not so much affect you 
as the nature of the things [contained in them,] which do so 
powerfully divert men's minds from their former manners and 
practices, that I have always been surprised, and have been fully 
convinced of it by many arguments heretofore : let us therefore 
begin afresh ; and if any thing heretofore has been imprudently 
acted, do you forgive. I have sent you a book de copia verho- 
rum. Farewell, dearest Paul. 



Paul to Seneca, Greeting. 

Epistle V. 
As often as I write to you, and place my name before yours? 
I do a thing both disagreeable to myself, and contrary to our re- 
ligion : for I ought, as I have often declared, to become all things 
to all men, and to have that regard to your quality, which the 

Gg2 



354 



Roman law has honoured all senators with ; viz. to put my name 
last in the [inscription of the] epistle, that I may not at length 
with uneasiness and shame be obliged to do that which it was 
always my inclination to do. Farewell, most respected master. 
Dated the fifth of the calends of July, in the fourth consulship of 
Nero and Messala. 



AnncBUs Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
Epistle VI. 

All happiness to you, my dearest Paul. If a person so great, 
and every way agreeable as you are, become not only a com- 
mon, but most intimate friend to me, how happy will be the case 
of Seneca! You, therefore, who are so eminent, and so far ex- 
alted above all, even the greatest, do not think yourself unfit to 
be first named in the inscription of an epistle ; lest I should sus- 
pect you intend not so much to try me, as to banter me ; for you 
know yourself to be a Roman citizen. And I could wish to be 
in that circumstance or station which you are, and that you were 
in the same that I am. Farewell, dearest Paul. Dated the 
tenth of the calends of April, in the Consulship of Aprianus and 
Capito. 

AniKBus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
Epistle VII. 
All happiness to you, my dearest Paul. Do you not suppose 
I am extremely concerned and grieved, that your innocence 
should bring you into sufferings'? And that all the people 
should suppose you (Christians) so criminal, and imagine all 
the misfortunes that happen to the city, to be caused by you ? 
But let us bear the charge with a patient temper, appealing 
(for our innocence) to the court (aboVe) which is the only one 
our hard fortune will allow us to appeal to, till at length our 
misfortunes shall end in unalterable happiness. Former ages 
have produced (tyrants) Alexander the son of Philip, and Dio- 
nysius; ours also has produced Caius Ceesar ; whose inclinations 
were their only laws. As to the frequent burnings of the city 
of Rome, the cause is manifest ; and if a person in my mean cir- 



355 



cumstances might be allowed to speak, and one might declare 
these dark things without danger, every one should see the 
whole of the matter. The Christians and Jews are indeed com- 
monly punished for the crime of burning the city ; but that im- 
pious miscreant, who delights in murders and butcheries, and 
disguises his villanies with lies, is appointed to, or reserved till, 
his proper time ; and as the life of every excellent person is 
now sacrificed, instead of that one person (who is the author of 
the mischief,) so this one shall be sacrificed for many, and he 
shall be devoted to be burnt with fire, instead of all. One hun- 
dred and thirty-two houses, and four whole squares [cr islands] 
were burnt down in six days : the seventh put an end to the 
burning. I wish you all happiness. Dated the fifth of the 
calends of April, in the consulship of Frigius and Bassus. 



Annceus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 

Epistle VIII. 

All happiness to you, my dearest Paul. You have written 
many volumes in an allegorical and mystical style, and there- 
fore such mighty matters and business being committed to you, 
require not to be set off with any rhetorical flourishes of speech, 
but only with some proper elegance. I remember you often say, 
that "many by affecting such a style do injury to their subjects, 
and lose the force of the matters they treat of." But in this I 
desire you to regard me, viz. to have respect to true Latin, and 
to choose just words, that so you may the better manage the 
noble trust which is reposed in you. Farewell. Dated 5th of 
the nones of July, Leo and Savinus consuls. 



Paul to Seneca, Greeting. 

Epistle VI. 
Your serious consideration is requited with those discoveries, 
which the Divine Being has granted but to few. I am thereby as- 
sured, that I sow the most strong seed in a fertile soil, not any thing 
material, which is subject to corruption, but the durable word 
of God, which shall increase and bring forth fruit to eternity. 



356 



That which by your wisdom you have attained to, shall abide 
without decay for ever. Believe that you ought to avoid the su- 
perstitions of Jews and Gentiles. The things which you have 
in some measure arrived to, prudently insinuate [make known] 
to the Emperor, his family, and to faithful friends ; and though 
your sentiments will seem disagreeable, and not be comprehend- 
ed by them, seeing most of them will not regard your discourses, 
yet the Word of God once infused into them, will at length 
make them become new men, aspiring towards God. Fare- 
well Seneca, who art most dear to us. Dated on the calends 
of August, in the consulship of Leo and Savinus. 



NOTE I. 

MIRACLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST, IN THE BOOK, ENTITLED 
" THE GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S INFANCY." 

Christ is represented as speaking in the cradle and telling his 
mother that he was her son. 

The swaddling clothes in which he was wrapt, when thrown 
into the fire, would not burn. When his parents entered Egypt 
in their flight from the cruelty of Herod, the girth of the saddle 
on which Mary rode, broke ; and the great idol of Egypt fell 
down at the approach of the infant Jesus. 

By means of the babe's swaddling clothes, several devils were 
cast out of a boy's mouth, in the shape of crows and serpents. 

A company of robbers, at the approach of Jesus, were fright- 
ened by being made to hear a sound, as of an army, &c. 

It is related, that a girl was cured of a leprosy, by means of 
water in which Christ's body had been washed. 

That a young man, who by witchcraft had been turned into 
a mule, was, upon Christ's mounting him, turned again into a 
man. 

Many other cures and miracles are wrought by means of 
Christ's swaddling clothes, and the water in which his body 
had been washed. 

A girl possessed of the devil, who appeared to her in the 
shape of a dragon, and so sucked her blood, that she looked 
like a dead carcass, was relieved by means of the swaddling 



357 



clothes of the infant Jesus, from which issued flames and coais 
of fire, which fell upon the dragon, so that he was frightened 
and left the girl. 

Another woman had a son named Judas, who was inclined to 
bite all that were present, and if he found no one else near him. 
he would bite his own hands and other parts. This child they 
brought to Jesus, and Satan coming upon him as usual, he went 
about to bite the Lord Jesus, and because he could not do it, he 
struck him on his right side, so that he cried out, and in the 
same moment, Satan went out of the boy, and ran away like a 
mad dog. This child was no other than Judas lscariot, who 
afterwards betrayed Jesus to the Jews. 

When Jesus was about seven years of age, he was -at play 
with several other boys of the same age, who were occupied in 
moulding clay into the shapes of oxen, asses, birds, &c. Then 
the Lord Jesus said to the boys, ' I will command these figures 
which I have made, to walk ;' and immediately they moved ; and 
when he commanded them to return, they returned. He also 
made the figures of birds and sparrows, which, when commanded, 
did fly — and if he gave them meat and drink, they did eat and 
drink. When the boys related these things to their parents, 
they warned them to shun his company, for he was a sorcerer. 

It is moreover related, that when Joseph, who was not very 
skilful at the carpenter's trade, had made any article which was 
too long or short, too wide or narrow, the Lord Jesus by stretch- 
ing his hand towards it, would reduce it at once to the proper 
dimensions. Joseph being employed by the king of Jerusalem, 
to make him a throne, was two years employed in the work, 
but when it came to be set up, wanted two spans of the proper 
measure, upon which Joseph was greatly troubled, and went to 
bed without his supper ; but Jesus told him not to be cast down, 
and seizing the throne on one side, and Joseph on the other, 
they drew it immediately into its proper dimensions. 

On one occasion he is said to have turned certain boys, who 
hid themselves from him, into kids, and then at the intercession 
of their mothers, restored them again to their proper shape. 

A boy having put his hand into a partridge's nest, to take out 
the eggs, was bit by a serpent, whereupon they brought them to 
Jesus, who directed them to carry him before him, to the place 



358 



where he had received the injury. On coming to the spot, 
Jesus called for the serpent, and it presently came forth ; and 
he said " go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused 
into that boy ; so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all 
its poison again. He also cures his brother James, who, in gath- 
ering sticks, was bitten by a viper. 

Being one day on the house top, playing with some boys, one 
of them fell down, and was instantly killed. And the boy's re- 
lations came and said to the Lord Jesus, " thou didst throw our 
son down from the house top;" but he denied it, and said, "let 
us go and ask himself." Then the Lord Jesus, going down, stood 
over the dead body, and said, with a loud voice, " Zeinunus, Ze- 
inunus, who threw thee down'?" Then the dead boy answered, 
' Thou didst not throw me down, but such a one.' 

Being, on a certain occasion, sent by his mother to the well 
for water, the pitcher broke, and he gathered up the water in 
his garment, and brought it to her. 

On another day, when he was occupied, with other boys, in 
making little fish pools, the Lord Jesus made twelve sparrows, 
and placed them about his pool ; but it was the Sabbath, and the 
son of Kanani, a Jew, came by, and saw them making these 
things, and said, " Do ye thus make figures of clay on the Sab- 
bath'?" And he broke down the fish pools. But when the Lord 
Jesus clapped his hands over the sparrows which he had made, 
they flew away, chirping. And when the son of Kanani came 
to his fish pool to destroy it, the water vanished away, and the 
Lord Jesus said to him, " as this water has vanished, so shall thy 
life vanish ;" and presently the boy died. 

On another occasion, a boy ran against him, and threw him 
down, whereupon the Lord Jesus said, "as thou hast thrown me 
down, so shalt thou fall never to rise ;" and that moment the 
boy fell down and died. 

There was, at Jerusalem, a schoolmaster, named Zacheus, 
who said to Joseph, " why dost thou not send Jesus to me, that 
he may learn his letters'?" And upon his being sent, the master 
bid him say Aleph, and when he had pronounced it, he bid him 
say Beth ; and the Lord Jesus said, tell me first the meaning of 
Aleph : and when the teacher threatened to whip him, he began 
and explained to him the meaning of the letters, describing them 



359 



according to their forms, telling which had double figures, and 
which were furnished with points, and which not: on which the 
master said, " I believe this boy was born before Noah." 

But after a while Joseph said to Mary, " Henceforth we will 
not let him go out of the house, for every one who displeases 
him is killed." 

When at the age of twelve years, Jesus was at Jerusalem, a 
certain astronomer asked him, whether he had studied astrono- 
my 1 Upon which he told him the number of the spheres and 
heavenly bodies, &c. There was there also a philosopher, who 
asked the Lord Jesus whether he had ever studied physic : he 
replied, and explained to him physics and metaphysics; the pow- 
ers of the body, its anatomy, &c. But from this time, he began 
to conceal his miracles, and gave himself to the study of the 
law, till he arrived to the end of his thirtieth year. 

[See the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, complete in the se- 
cond volume of Jones on the Canon, from which work this trans- 
lation is taken.] 



LEFe '10 



, 



